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 would not expect to have to work with a colleague who was accused of sexual harassment and spoke in work time about their innocence.
They are welcome to go and speak about it on their own time to whoever will listen.

There's no free speech incursion here.

YT will have demonitised Brand's videos to protect their own brand and because few advertisers will want their ads running on his videos, simple as that. Brand agreed to the T&C's when he opened his account. His videos are still there and he can publish more.

Rumble's brand is different - they specifically position themselves as a platform which will let you make money from broadcasting controversial and non-mainstream views. Rumble's response to the letter they received is clearly written as a PR/marketing exercise. Dripping with emotive language. I bet they loved being able to publish it and further embed their brand in people's minds as the internet's defender of free speech (but in reality it's not free speech they are enabling, it's making money from that speech. Remember - Brand is still on YT).

The question in the last paragraph of Dame Caroline's letter is pertinent and Rumble made zero attempt to answer it.

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has a remit to ensure the UK's media and broadcasting infrastructure is functioning. If we have a situation where someone accused of a crime can make money from broadcasting a discussion of the situation, that's an issue. It's an issue for our culture and media in general, and it's an issue for fairness to the alleged victims.

A similar letter would be sent to a newspaper if they paid Brand money for his side of the story. In fact the repercussions if they did this would be greater than just getting a letter. The newspaper would not get the letter it they just ran his side of the story without paying him.

Excellent post @VoodooQualities

I notice the free speech union has jumped on this bandwagon and I do not agree at all for the reasons you outline.

The key word here being accused. Not convicted.

Free speech should be for all, however much others don't like what is being said.

Anything else is a very dangerous path.

Oh look, his free speech is so restricted… Musk is begging him to post on X 🙄

x.com/JimMFelton/status/1705497439623377333?s=20

Elon starting to realise it's just been about money for Brand, not actual free speech.

If only it were possible for him to speak the truth without being paid. What kind of crazy free speech utopia would that be?

He can say what he likes - within the law. And nobody can stop us watching and listening.
Or reading ; give it 18 months til his My Ordeal type wooky book ...

Quite, as can all his victims.

*alleged victims.

What about drag Queen story time then? Is it free speech for men dressed up as sexualised parodies of women to read to small children?

Oh wait, no, it's not that easy when you're female, on a much lower income, feeling traumatised and also been threatened with litigation.

Who has the free speech here?

Is it free speech for a bloke down the pub to read them a porn story?

*If we have a situation where someone accused of a crime can make money from broadcasting a discussion of the situation, that's an issue. It's an issue for our culture and media in general, and it's an issue for fairness to the alleged victims.

A similar letter would be sent to a newspaper if they paid Brand money for his side of the story. In fact the repercussions if they did this would be greater than just getting a letter. The newspaper would not get the letter it they just ran his side of the story without paying him.*

Did his accusers get paid? Genuinely asking, I can't find any info on it - is it legal to pay witnesses in these scenarios?

@lemmein i don’t think accusers is quite the right term. These are women who have told their side of their relationships/sexual encounters with him. Whilst some of the points they talk about may add up to crimes of rape or assault by him, I don’t think ( correct me if I am wrong) any of them accused him of crimes.

This may seem a minor point, but I think there is a distinction between discussions of this kind and accusations.

My apologies I haven’t rtft, but I have been reflecting upon this and I think there is a distinction to be made between ‘content creators’ and ‘created content’.

I think platforms should be within their rights to pull content which goes against their policies, but not to pull content creators (apart from those who are serious or serial breachers of content policy), unless that person has been convicted, in a court of law of a serious crime and the presence on the platform worsens the crime (for example if a convicted pedophile created a ‘Shirley Temple Fanclub’ YouTube channel and was known to liken their victims to Shirley Temple while abusing- however a convicted pedophile should be allowed to have a YouTube channel about fixing old radios or some other unrelated content) and their current content could harm national security or be used criminally.

Platforms are not an ‘employer’ and content creators are not their ‘employees’.

Platforms are services and service providers.

Youtube taking it upon themselves to stop providing their services to a content creator because of their alleged activity, not undertaken through use of their service, is like refuse collectors refusing to collect Brand’s family’s rubbish, or the local hospital refusing to send an ambulance to his home.

This ‘refusal of service’ is not akin to an employer not wanting to damage their reputation or harm an internal investigation and suspends the employee who has a grievance against them, it is akin to a punishment. It is like a fine, a custodial sentence, public humiliation - the pillory, etc. It is a punishment. Service providers have no authority to mete out punishment for alleged crimes which are nothing to do with them, and that includes media platforms.

He hasn't been banned from YouTube/Instagram.. He just can't make money from it. A guy I worked with was suspended while he was being investigated for rape with full pay.. Brand is self employed so that won't be the case.
He's worth millions.. I don't have much sympathy for him.

They’re not service providers remotely comparable with the vital public services you mention. They’re publishers.

And YouTube haven’t pulled any of Brand’s videos or stopped him from posting new ones so I fail to understand the point of your post anyway.

Large platforms like YouTube - who host and monetise content enabling people to make a living are providing an absolutely vital service. People need an income to live.

Presumably @BCCoach you are supportive of the toxic underlings working at publishers who are making writers turn to lorry driving for a living, for having opinions they don’t like?

Calling platforms ‘publishers’, rather than recognising their service provision role, must, in your mind, give such toxic underlings free rein to police public expression and to unperson those they don’t like.

What nonsense. The same argument could be made of the slave trade: people who provide a market for those trading slaves/traffic people to make a living are providing an absolutely vital service. People need an income to live.

Free speech is a human right even when I find the other person or what they're saying offensive.

The exceptions being those covered by existing law, I feel like these are a good balance (inciting violence, discrimination against specific protected characteristics).

However, companies (who are not someone's direct employer) are fully within their rights to choose who they decide to promote or monetise. This isn't about 'free speech' IMO. If I'm a company and not someone's employer I have a right to put terms in my contract that allow me to do that.

Right-wing fanatics talking about this are usually also extreme free market enthusiasts so I'm not sure how they manage to get to a world view that has two completely conflicting ideologies.

It also means that companies can choose not to cancel people - effectively this is the whole reason Elon Musk bought Twitter.

What I do have a problem with is employers firing people...that's different IMO and must follow all the usual procedures. If someone expresses opinions you don't agree with and that are not exceptions under existing law and don't constitute things covered by the disciplinary policy like bullying or harassment then there is an issue.

TLDR: Brand is vile but gets to have free speech. YouTube gets to demonetise him. Cancel culture could also be known as 'natural consequences'.

You have gone a bit too far left field there.

People get fired all the time

• 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.*

I agree when it is about an actual job.

No-one is 'going after Brand's job'...he is self employed and earns revenue across multiple income streams. When you are self-employed in this way you know that you are taking a certain amount of risk re: needing to 'align with the brand values'.

YouTube are fully within their rights as a company to decide who they monetise and who they don't as long as it's within the terms of the contract signed by users. They are not his employer.

This is a very important distinction.

There are other channels that Brand can now pursue if he wishes.

I get what people are saying about the power this gives social media platforms and it's hugely worth a public discourse but I'd probably rather several private companies had this power than the state TBH. At least there are multiple alternatives...