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?

Yes. All his talk about being anti-establishment is bollocks.

He was a darling of the Beeb, darling of Channel 4, darling of Hollywood, married one of the biggest pop stars at the time… etc, etc.

Stop f-ing whining about ‘The Establishment’ and ‘The Media’ - Brand. They gave you all the breaks.

!?!

Off on a tangent again.

Love the idea that you can silence debate by saying ‘off at a tangent again’

‘Silence’?

What are you talking about fgs?

If we are talking principles then why focus purely on YouTube? Why not other platforms that pay content creators? We are not talking just ‘speech’ here - YouTube is a visual platform too so I presume we are talking about freedom to broadcast audiovisual output. And we have been told free speech must extend to being paid for that content.

what about pornhub? Do the same principles apply there?

I am focusing on the tech giants for illustration purposes. Because their relative monopoly of the market place means user can’t just ‘shop elsewhere’ and get the same service, as it were. But I would argue that smaller publishers, record labels, etc, shouldn’t be allowed to unperson and demonetise their creators either, just because some nasty toxic underling, wielding power they can’t handle responsibly, disagrees with their opinions. Same goes for service providers like banks, or whatever.

However, this is all besides the point.

The crux of the matter is this-

Who has the right to punish people for saying things they do not like?

Are we all free to use/abuse any power, within our employment, to punish those we disagree with?

Depending on our line of employment, that punishment could take the form of mere minor inconvenience, or it could be denying a person’s income and livelihood, exposing them to danger, causing them a major life catastrophe. Do we as individuals, have the right, to take our political opinions to work and use our workplace resources to mete out punishment, in an attempt to curb and silence the expressions of opinions we disagree with?

@TeenEyeroll why are you on about nasty toxic underlings? Certainly on old Twitter, it took a long time and many offences before trump was banned, and that went to very senior staff.

As for you tube etc, i assume they have policies, as do newspapers, it’s not one power hungry 23 year old or something

The thing about crime and punishment, is that there is supposed to be some sort of impartiality and proportionality, ensured by the process and the rules, for fairness, so that the ‘time’ fits the crime.

With this modern vigilante justice, where not even crimes, but opinions can be punished by whatever means the vigilante has to hand, then there is no proportionality whatsoever and, of course, no proportionality.

The current climate where everyone seems to feel entitled to severely punish those they disagree with means I even wondered about Joan Rivers death when undergoing a routine medical procedure- I thought - was she given inadequate care because she was a ‘terf’? A nurse I’m the UK even said she wouldn’t treat a Tory.

Just looked, yes there are still adverts, so yes they are still making money.

Demontised means the creator gets no money from content uploaded or money from advertising. If YouTube really was bothered by what he is accused of they would remove his content and make no money from it,.

Old Twitter was exposed to being like the Wild West. Anyone could create any algorithm and be undetected. Any personal vendetta unnoticed.

Many organisations right now are being told by HR consultants that they are ‘old fashioned’ with their normal, logical, reality-based views. This puts knowledgable and experienced people on the back foot opens the door to letting their nasty, self-righteous underling tail, wag the whole dog.

Sure, Jan.

Look into ESG reports.

The powerful, millionaire, self confessed sex offender and renter of women's bodies, Russell Brand still has freedom of speech. I don't mind private companies like YouTube demonetising him now. He has made enough money from his misogyny and abuse of women.

I'm not sure what his rights have to do with Feminism.

This

I haven't read the full thread, but is anyone else seriously alarmed by this post?
OF COURSE people have to be tried in a court of law before they are deemed guilty! Anything else is a kangaroo court.you can just go round deciding people are guilty because you think they are and it fits your agenda.
Otherwise what's to stop people setting traps to find others guilty with 'witnesses' in on the act.
Honestly, sometimes MN astounds me

YouTube have a whole heap of criteria, guidelines, and policies dictating who is eligible for monetisation. Why should a private platform not be able to govern this as they wish? I mean what’s the alternative they’re forced to give everyone money?

I don't know where I stand on free speech, I'm certainly not an absolutist, but this defence of censorship based on YouTube/Facebook/Twitter etc being private companies leads to dubious consequences.

Shopping centres are also private spaces so the other day, a repair-man was unable to buy a soft drink in a wealthy part of my city because he was refused admission to the shopping centre as he didn't look upmarket enough.

Eh?

I am talking about someone who does this at work losing their job. Not about deeming someone criminally guilty without them going to court.

You do realise that Brand did exactly the above and then joked about it immediately afterwards on radio?

For fuck's sake, organisations not being willing to provide you with a paid platform for your views is not "being denied free speech."

I honestly get so angry at people abusing and exploiting the concept of free speech for their own agenda.

Brand has the exact same free speech as every other human being in the democratic world. Absolutely no one has denied or hindered or attempted to oppress his free speech in any way.

I'm so sick of extremely privileged celebs who already have a gigantic platform and far more of an outlet to speak than anyone else (and certainly have a much bigger forum for their speech than any of their victims) pretending that they're victims of censorship or cancel culture so they can exploit the culture ways to line their own pockets via pretending to be the victim.

It's like Laurence Fox, or that author woman who wrote the book about schoolkids, whining on and on about how they're victims of cancel culture and censorship in every single newspaper, magazine, TV show... which they're only on because they're pretending to have been censored.

Crikey, I wish I was being "censored" if "censorship" means getting your voice on a million TV shows and newspaper/magazine articles and ensuring that every passing through you have is amplified to millions!

Who has the right to punish people for saying things they do not like? Are we all free to use/abuse any power, within our employment, to punish those we disagree with?

Yes, any commercial private enterprise has 100% autonomy over who they chose to hire/pay money to, as long as it doesn't infringe on discrimination legislation.

If I own a coffee shop and hire a musician to play, I can fire that musician for literally any reason as long as it's not discrimination against a protected class. If I'm forced against my will to hire a musician I don't want to hire, that is a huge violation of my freedom.

No one has the right to force someone else to give them a job.

No one is entitled to fame. No one is entitled to movie roles. No one is entitled to media columns. The vast, vast majority of people do not have access to these things - why is Brand so special that the same freedom of speech every single one of us has, isn't good enough for him?

A private business deciding they don't want to pay money to a alleged rapist is not "punishment" and it's extremely bizarre and goady to frame it as "punishment."

Brand is part of the 1% (and Brand is absolutely part of the elite and part of the establishment) who believe they are special and entitled to treatment the general public aren't allowed access to. If we're not allowed those platforms and he is, then clearly we're all being denied freedom of speech to. Unless you can make an argument why the elitist establishment are more deserving of paid platforms for their views than us?

It's ironic, you're pretending this is a free speech issue, but what you're actually doing is trying to deny private commercial enterprises the right to make their own decisions as to who they want to platform, and basically removing their right to freedom of speech.

I think this thread has the wrong title really. The RB issue is, ‘is a fair trial for everyone, including Russell Brand?’.

Russell Brand is being financially punished without a trial, is that okay?

If so, is punishment without trial always okay, or only sometimes? What are the conditions that make it okay/not okay?

The free speech issue, is more about the attempts to actually close down his accounts on the platforms he communicates through.

The fact that YouTube chose to leave up, but demonetise his content, means the ‘punishment without trial’ issue is more pertinent than free speech.

YouTube can choose to remove or demonitise whoever they like. And they do. Often without clarity.

They removed Helen Joyce speaking to Jordan Peterson a few months ago.
They've demonitised Matt Walsh.
That's up to them.

Except it is such a monolith central platform that removal or demonitisation actually means you can't share your content and you don't make money.

So the question is: are we happy for a private organisation to have that much power and to control what is publically circulated based on their own arbitrary decisions?
Whether that's accusation of a crime.
Or views they think are transphobic.
Or something the WHO disagrees with?

The question isn't really about RB it's about whether you're happy with YouTube having the amount of power they do to decide what you hear or who makes money and whether you want them making those decisions influenced by government?

If you're fine with RB being demonitised you have to equally be fine when they take against someone you do like for their own arbitrary reasons.

Personally I think people accused but not charged or convicted of crimes should remain on YouTube.
And people who have views which differ from mine should be on YouTube.
And the government should have no influence on who has access to YouTube.

Id feel safer then.

Don't kid yourself it could never be you being unfairly shut down.
GC feminists should have learned that lesson.

Russell Brand is being financially punished without a trial, is that okay?

No, he isn't. At all.

A commercial private enterprise deciding they don't want to hire you is not "punishment."

Just bizarre Orwellian gaslighting doublethink.

@TeenEyeroll People kept punished in plenty of ways without a court trial.

If people could only have negative consequences for their behaviour following a court trial then things will only get worse for women.

Except it is such a monolith central platform that removal or demonitisation actually means you can't share your content and you don't make money.

Brand has access to every single form of free speech as the rest of us, and has substantially more power than anyone who isn't part of Brand's elite 1% establishment.

And the government should have no influence on who has access to YouTube.
LOL the government don't have any influence. Why are you pushing borderline Q-Anon conspiracy theories trying to hint that a private commercial enterprise is somehow secretly being controlled by the government? (The government is part of the same elite establishment as Brand).

If you're fine with RB being demonitised you have to equally be fine when they take against someone you do like for their own arbitrary reasons.
Yep I'm perfectly fine with any random private commercial enterprise not paying money to someone I like. Since no one is entitled to celebrity, and no one is entitled to be paid money for their views.

Brand still has access to any public platform as the rest of us.

Brand is still completely free to post anything he likes on YouTube or any other platform. He has not been removed or banned from YouTube, so how on earth can this possibly be a free speech issue?

Brand isn't being denied anything at all.

You are the one going Orwellian!

Private companies are still subject to employment law and contractual obligations.

YouTube have far too much freedom to arbitrarily wreck someone’s life on a whim. There needs to be special measures for tech giants and businesses like banks who can disproportionately harm their customers/clients by sudden withdrawal of service, to prevent them doing this for personal or political reasons.