Russell Brand

[jenniren]

I've always found Russell Brand revolting, but I don't like or agree with trial by media.
Some of the papers this morning are calling for his wife to abandon him. For goodness sake, she's pregnant and doesn't deserve to be treated like this.

[Suff]

Yes Jen but as Crommers says,he's spouting the wrong thing and so he is fair game by fair means or foul.

This also happened to Elon Musk after he went republican and bought twitter.

There is a difference between being a media personality and the richest man in the world though. They have been Tring to brand Musk as an anti semite. Last night Netanyahu sat down with him on a broadcast and said "I know you are not". For Brand this kind of thing is not going to happen.

[Kaz]

I think what RB is accused of is in a different league to Huw or Philip Schofield. It should, however, be absolutely up to the courts to sortl of this out, not the media.

[Suff]

I think what RB is accused of is in a different league to with Huw or Philip Schofield. It should, however, be absolutely up to the courts to sort all of this out, not the media.

Agree totally Kaz. These are criminal offenses which we are hearing about, they should be reported to the police. There is a definite case here that he could avoid these charges because of it now being impossible for him to get a fair trial.

Today I heard that his Youtube account has been suspended meaning his income from that is now pulled.

Does an accusation in the media without police charges now mean you lose your income and become blocked from social media? That is a Very dangerous trend.

[Kaz]

I believe that at least one complaint has now been made to the Met, and is being investigated.

[Suff]

About time. However it should have been the other way around if in the press and media at all.

If he's guilty then he needs to face the consequences. I hate this kind of thing but I won't burn an innocent man just to "go with the crowd". Not assuming he's innocent to be clear more that the assumption of innocence should be paramount and the burden of proof of guilt to be provided.

[Suff]

And the Government is trying to control social media on this.



Rumble declined. Publicly.

From Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski:

“Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament. While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform. Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet – meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

“We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don’t agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

“Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.”

https://reclaimthenet.org/rumble-reject ... p-pressure