This judge is a turkey.
It’s the nature of this kind of trial that the woman accuses the man of rape, the man says that she consented but was too drunk to remember, etc., etc., and the jury sorts it out and gives its verdict.
So, how on earth can the jury give a verdict if one side or the other isn’t allowed to state its case?
Like I said, this judge is a turkey. He needs to be put out to pasture (oh, no, that’s for cows; well, whatever).
Rape is a horrible crime, and merely accusing someone of it makes people look at that person with disgust.
I don't think the Judge should have banned using those words, however I also think people should make rational rather than emotional decisions, but it seems rationality is getting rarer and rarer.
The case is based completely on her word that he should have known that she was too intoxicated to consent, even though she apparently did consent.
She apparently also consented to consuming huge amounts of alcohol.
The guy might not be the most moral guy on the planet, but he didn't force himself on her, which is what most people consider to be the definition of rape.
They are redefining rape to use the stigma of the word to their advantage. When the prosecution starts redefining words to get sway the jury, it the judge really that far out of bounds to prevent it?