Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 9 10

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Is free speech for everyone, including Russell Brand?

247 replies

Appalonia · 23/09/2023 17:47

Firstly I want to say I 100% believe the victims and think he should be held accountable for what he's done. But the demonetising of his YouTube channel, and being basically scrubbed from all media channels doesn't sit well with me. And, this is creating a massive backlash online from the many pp who already think these allegations have only come out now as ' The Establishment ' doesn't like what he's saying.

So many women have been 'cancelled' for saying things like men aren't women and women need safe spaces ( JKR ) and more recently Roisin Murphy for objecting to puberty blockers. It's tricky, but if we believe in free speech for us, shouldn't it be the same for everyone?

OP posts:

Thanks

Share

Report

Jenala · 23/09/2023 17:49

Yep.

Thanks

RealityFan · 23/09/2023 17:51

If Kevin Spacey had been a brand like Brand, would we all have been calling for his cancelling like we are with RB? I think we would have.

Thanks

SheilaFentiman · 23/09/2023 17:51

YouTube is a publisher - we don’t all get a column in the times either. Brand can put what he wants on his own website, within the rules of his ISP

Thanks

12moose · 23/09/2023 17:53

It's really chilling to that anyone could be denied the right to earn a living for any reason, other than them being tried in a court of law and sent to prison.

Thanks

TheClitterati · 23/09/2023 17:55

Yes. Free speech is for everyone, even the cnuts.

Just like feminism is about rights for all women, even the ones we can't stand, even the ones who don't want those rights.

Thanks

SheilaFentiman · 23/09/2023 17:55

12moose · 23/09/2023 17:53

It's really chilling to that anyone could be denied the right to earn a living for any reason, other than them being tried in a court of law and sent to prison.

So if a man flashes you at work, tries to stop you leaving a room, then goes off an jokes about it with a colleague, which is recorded, he shouldn’t lose his job, unless you go to the police and secure a conviction?

Only criminal behaviour is enough for that?

Really?

Thanks

Watchkeys · 23/09/2023 17:56

He can still say what he wants, can't he? YouTube isn't a human right, but free speech is. They're not the same thing.

Thanks

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/09/2023 17:56

I agree. I don't think it's right as a free speech issue to "cancel" people's YouTube channels in this way. It's never just going to affect people you don't like.

I completely believe the women's accounts of their rapes and sexual assaults. I've known men like Brand. He's a misogynistic scumbag. I would fully support his prosecution and as a free speech issue I also support their right to name their abuser.

Thanks

TheClitterati · 23/09/2023 17:57

I think RB is horrendous & should be in jail.

But those govt letters attempting to demonitise his channels should worry us all.

Thanks

TheClitterati · 23/09/2023 17:58

So if a man flashes you at work, tries to stop you leaving a room, then goes off an jokes about it with a colleague, which is recorded, he shouldn’t lose his job, unless you go to the police and secure a conviction?

RB is self employed

Thanks

SheilaFentiman · 23/09/2023 18:00

TheClitterati · 23/09/2023 17:58

So if a man flashes you at work, tries to stop you leaving a room, then goes off an jokes about it with a colleague, which is recorded, he shouldn’t lose his job, unless you go to the police and secure a conviction?

RB is self employed

I am aware of that.

I was responding to the poster who thought only criminal conviction was enough to deprive of livelihood

Thanks

Appalonia · 23/09/2023 18:01

And what pisses me off about this is that much of the conversation on Twitter ( and Spaces ) is NOT about his behaviour, and how it was enabled for so long, but about how easy it is to take down men by false allegations. Which a LOT of men believe. I feel like the discussion has been hijacked and a really important point ( men yet again abusing their power and sexually abusing women, and getting away with it ) has been completely lost...

OP posts:

Thanks

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 18:03

12moose · 23/09/2023 17:53

It's really chilling to that anyone could be denied the right to earn a living for any reason, other than them being tried in a court of law and sent to prison.

Having a YouTube channel demonetised isn’t the same as being denied a right to earn a living. There are plenty of organisations that are comfortable with employing men who’ve got a bad reputation with women. Whether they should be comfortable with it is a different question.

Thanks

MargotBamborough · 23/09/2023 18:21

Can someone explain what YouTube have done?

Have they pulled his videos from the platform or just stopped him making advertising revenue from them?

Thanks

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 18:40

As I understand it, it’s the ad money Margot. His videos are still on YT.

Thanks

DworkinWasRight · 23/09/2023 19:18

Brand hasn’t been cancelled because his views are offensive (though they are, in my view). He’s been cancelled - or demonetised - because he’s been accused of a serious crime. That’s a slightly different issue. You might still think that’s wrong but it’s not at all analogous to the cancellation of people like Rosie Kay or Graham Linehan.

Thanks

MargotBamborough · 23/09/2023 19:33

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 18:40

As I understand it, it’s the ad money Margot. His videos are still on YT.

I see. Thanks.

So not a free speech issue at all then.

I daresay Russell Brand has many other sources of income than YouTube.

Thanks

LetMeEnfoldYou · 23/09/2023 19:35

It's not a free speech issue though, it's about the YouTube brand trying to protect itself.

Thanks

PinkFrogss · 23/09/2023 19:42

Is YouTube monetisation a human right now?

Not making money from your speech doesn’t impact your right to speak.

Youtube demonitise for all sorts anyway, I believe some YouTubers get individual videos demonitised if they swear for example.

Thanks

Farahilda · 23/09/2023 19:43

You are confusing the right to free speech - which he has - with a "right" to have a particular channel host it in a particular way

Thanks

ArabeIIaScott · 23/09/2023 20:01

LetMeEnfoldYou · 23/09/2023 19:35

It's not a free speech issue though, it's about the YouTube brand trying to protect itself.

Yes, this is capitalism in action.

It may well open up larger arguments about the public square and how much power social media companies have.

Thanks

RebelliousCow · 23/09/2023 20:01

DworkinWasRight · 23/09/2023 19:18

Brand hasn’t been cancelled because his views are offensive (though they are, in my view). He’s been cancelled - or demonetised - because he’s been accused of a serious crime. That’s a slightly different issue. You might still think that’s wrong but it’s not at all analogous to the cancellation of people like Rosie Kay or Graham Linehan.

For me it is the transgression of boundaries between one type of thing and another that is the issue. If someone has been accused of a crime, then let the criminal justice service deal with it. Until the point that someone has their personal liberty removed from them in the form of imprisonment then it is not fair game to go after their job and everything else in between.

This is not about supporting Brand, but about prortecting civil liberties and not falling into the trap of a Chinese social credit type of system - whereby people can be completely cancelled for going against the dominant moral/political/social system.

It is very Orwellian.

And people trying to suggest that you don't care about women's rights/trans rights/black lives if you point this point is part of the problem, as I see it.

Thanks

RebelliousCow · 23/09/2023 20:02

If you point this out

Thanks

ThereIbledit · 23/09/2023 20:05

I doubt YouTube is a very high % of his income FWIW.

No, I don't think he should be cancelled. I'm 50/50 about whether demonetisation is ok or not in this case, in all honesty. I think a company like You Tube should be able to make their own mind up - I don't think a bank should be able to do so as easily as a social media company (ref Nigel Farage).

RB's social media presence isn't (currently) posing the threat to women that Andrew Tate is. I think deplatforming him should be the focus of conversations before we get to RB (I believe the women).

Thanks

BCCoach · 23/09/2023 20:06

12moose · 23/09/2023 17:53

It's really chilling to that anyone could be denied the right to earn a living for any reason, other than them being tried in a court of law and sent to prison.

Do you think a police officer accused of rape should stay in post until conviction? I don’t know about your employer but mine would suspend anyone accused of a serious criminal offence without pay with immediate effect. As would the vast majority of employers I expect. Brand’s publishers have suspended him in the same way an employer would. Big deal.

Thanks

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 9 10

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.