Is free speech for everyone, including Russell Brand?

[Appalonia]

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?

I don't believe he didn't. He probably did.

I just know he's not been tried on any offence. Therefore not a sex offender. Yet.

I really don't remember this kind of "he's not a..." discussion around many other very well known sexual assault/ murder cases.

You can be fired for gross misconduct without ever having set foot in a courtroom. Can I ask what you are doing on a feminism forum if you seriously believe that a known sexual predator should only be fired if they were convicted in court?

do you seriously believe offences haven’t happened until a conviction is secured?

He did do it. He said he did it. He recorded it and broadcast it to millions of people. The woman he did it to has verified it. She also reported it to the BBC at the time.

As soon as someone commits an offence, they are an offender. If I steal your you handbag, the offence happens as soon as I rip it from your shoulder and make off down the street with it. At that moment you have become the victim of a crime that I have committed. Even if you don't go to the police at all.

Russell Brand is a self confessed sex offender, buyer of women's bodies and now whiny "victim". He has fuck all in common with the amazing women who campaign tirelessly and at great personal cost to make women safer.

MNHQ will confirm I've been a frequent poster on Mumsnet for years, albeit one who name changes frequently, and I am very obviously female (and have years of posting about my involvement with GC feminism both online and in real life).

I stated that I have concerns over the fact one specific poster - who has done everything in their power to defend a credibly accused rapist; has tried their hardest to align GC feminism with alleged rapists; who has repeatedly screamed abuse and threats and used bigoted slur terms for mentally disabled people against anyone disagreeing with their defence of Brand - is posting certain talking points and arguments that chime with those common in MRA spaces.

I believe that and I stand by that and I am allowed that opinion.

Any regular poster knows there's been a huge, huge influx of pro-Russell Brand threads lately, and threads using devil's advocate to support him and demean or smear his victims (look how many threads there have been lately purporting to "just play devil's advocate" by "raising awareness" of the number of poor men whose lives have been ruined by evil women making fake rape allegations for attention/a payout, all in threads with Brand's name in the subject, clearly trying to use association to subtly insinuate that the women who have accused Brand are liars out for attention or a payday). Many, many Mumsnetters have expressed concern about this. Mumsnet is primarily a site for women and is known for being a feminist forum, and we have always been targeted because of that.

Women who stand up to culture of sexual abuse and men viewing women as objects to serve them have always been demonised.

There's been a very clear pattern both on this thread and elsewhere to attack and smear anyone who pushes back on the endless Brand-defence. Just on this thread alone I've been called "a moral arbiter", called "a fascist"; accused of promoting some shadowy powerful establishment (which links to the conspiracy theories that Brand is being framed because he's somehow anti-establishment); called offensive slur terms for mentally disabled people; accused of secretly a man, accused of "policing the thread"; accused of being a new/unknown poster; accused of posting just to try to generate screencaps; accused of being a troll - I've had an insane amount of personal abuse and smear campaigning thrown at me, solely for saying I think it's fine to demonetise an accused rapist and that I don't agree with those defending him.

That's an extraordinary amount of time and effort to demonise one poster.

I know I'm not the only person wondering why.

@CoughingMajoress agreed, MRA and American-style libertarian entryism is all it is. They see GC feminists as useful idiots.

Well no.

Mumsnet has rules, registering an account means ticking a box agreeing to abide by those rules. I'm sorry if you feel that is censorship, or a violation of your free speech.

Calling posters offensive slur terms and accusing them of being trolls just because you don't like that they disagree with you, is not allowed here. This is Feminist Chat, of course posters won't agree with defending an accused rapist.

You seem to be very upset that you've been "accused" of lots of things

That is a pretty normal human reaction to being called an offensive slur term for a mentally disabled person, a troll, a fascist, and all manner of other abuse.

you believe to be unfair but others believe to be true

Are you... are you trying to make the argument "but others believe that it's true that you're a [offensive slur term for a mentally disabled person] and a fascist troll so they should be allowed to call you that, even though it's against the site rules"?

Anyway I find it interesting that the poster who Advanced Search me and accused me of being a troll for posting under a new-ish username, accused me of attacking a "well-established longterm poster", yet the poster they referred to as "a well-established longterm poster" is also posting under a new-ish username.

I want to be clear I'm not troll hunting. Many Mumsnetters name-change frequently, using a username that doesn't have much of a posting history attached to it doesn't mean that one is new, or a troll. When I see someone posting from a new username, I certainly don't assume troll, I just assume it's someone who likes to namechange.

It's just quite funny that someone who called me a troll for posting under a new username refers to someone who's also under a new username as "a well-established longterm poster." What's good for the goose, eh?

@CoughingMajoress Russell Brand has known this day was coming ever since he was "managed out" of Roast Battle.

After that he focused on the internet, rebranding himself as an enlightened guru, truth speaker and sacrificial lamb. He's been grooming his followers ever since and now some of them are here.

I disagree with YouTube's action, but he hasn't been denied the right to earn a living. Having the right to earn a living doesn't mean that other businesses lose their right to decide who they do business with, and must be forced to help you earn a living.

Are rape and sexual assault classified as 'free speech' these days?

Russell Brand has freedom of speech and as long as they are not refusing to host him due to a protected characteristic then a private company ie YouTube has the right to refuse to either monetize it or even host it. As far as I'm concerned it only becomes an issue when it comes to a protected characteristic, being a rapist thankfully isn't a protected characteristic. Thankfully the belief that you have the right to rape without repercussions is never going to be WORIADS

How are people defining free speech?

Nobody has ever had freedom from the consequences of their speech.

A "known sexual predator" that many women decided they quite fancied, nevertheless. Women are not by nature victims. Also a sexual predator that many people went to see in concert, who read his books, and laughed at his act for all of the years he was being " very, very promiscuous".

What some of these women have expressed clearly reveals, though, that Brand is more than capable of abusive and violent sexual behaviour. Let us see what now transpires and what charges are brought. Time has obviously caught up with him.

However, there has to be a level of letting the criminal justice service do its business - and not having everyone pile in from every angle, including the government just for the sake of virtual signalling.

Free speech is speech that is not proscribed.

Ppersonally, don't see this as a matter of free speech - more about due process and the observation of the categorical boundaries between one thing and another type of thing.

I believe the victims, and I also believe Brand himself. He condemned himself out of his own mouth on live TV, whatever denials he might have uttered later. Yet even this, it seems, is insufficient to stop his staunch defenders claiming it's all bunkum and really a campaign on the part of The Establishment to bring him down. As if this buffoon could ever be a real threat - to anyone other than women, that is.

I'm ambivalent about the handling of this issue. A huge media expose has enabled victims to come forward, whereas otherwise they would likely have remained silent. Brand, like others of his ilk, is quick to threaten litigation. This was a painstaking, four-year investigation, not some knee-jerk response, and to avoid legal recourse the outlets who published these allegations would have needed to be very sure of their facts.

Apparently he has been interviewed under caution before (and Big Surprise!; the police took no further action) but trust in the police is at an all-time low. What else would have persuaded the victims to come forward in a body and receive the recognition and help they need?

On the negative side, I want this fucker to receive his just desserts as a result of due process. I'd like to see him prosecuted and convicted. But how in the world could he ever have a fair trial now?

I dispute assertionsthat RB won't be able to get a fair trial. Kevin Spacey got a fair trial. Even Lucy Letby wasn't found guilty on all charges.

He is a sex offender, he’s just an unconvicted one.

That is the normal kind.

You can be fired for gross misconduct without ever having set foot in a courtroom

Yes, this - obviously. Last year I sacked someone for groping a junior at a staff party, no court required. I have also sacked someone for gross misconduct over a sexist tweet.

People are weirdly unclear on what free speech means.

Hate speech increases violence by purposely insulting the opposite party and promoting discriminatory activities, whereas free speech encourages debate by liberally but politely presenting both sides of an issue.

Whether something is "discriminatory" or not, may well be disputed.

And if you call someone out for demonising language, (which is a real issue no doubt), they are probably going to defend it as justified. Such and such a group really are that bad, and they are motivated by bigotry and hate, and so it's OK to be saying this stuff about them.

I think "free speech", while we should favour being polite, or at least mostly polite, I think it does include potentially harsh and aggressive rhetoric. And that may be used fairly or not.