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?

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

Please provide proof that Brand signed a legal employment contract with YouTube and that he legally holds the status of YouTube employee.

If someone relies on YouTube for an income and doesn’t account for the risks then they are very, very stupid. People are not employed or contracted by YouTube if they choose to upload videos and meet the criteria for monetisation.

Youtube are within their right to pull monetisation for an individual or for anyone at any point. YouTube could go down, get sold, lose popularity etc at any point.

I don’t think Brands life has been “ruined” because YouTube has pulled his monetisation, and if I’m wrong about that then it’s the consequences of his own actions and I have no sympathy.

I am pretty sure that YouTube’s lawyers have constructed terms and conditions which unfairly weight the contract in their own favour. Might is right. What are people going to do, pop in down the road and choose the other YouTube, which offers fairness and more security? Er no. There’s only one YouTube. That dominance and monopoly means they get to dictate all the terms.

Is Dan TDM very, very stupid?

What contract??

Please provide proof that Russell Brand has ever signed an employment contract with YouTube.

Brand isn't a YouTube employee, he's never been a YouTube employee, there's not been the slightest suggestion by anyone, ever, that he's ever been hired to be a YouTube employee, or that he's ever signed an employment contract with YouTube.

Ranting that uploading videos to YouTube gives you the legal status of YouTube employee and thus protected by employment law and legally owed a salary just makes you look either deeply unintelligent or determined to make up any kind of doublethink nonsense.

By that standard every single person who's ever uploaded a video to YouTube is legally an employee and can sue to receive a salary.

There’s only one YouTube. That dominance and monopoly means they get to dictate all the terms.

There's tons YouTube alternatives, many of which are extremely popular with those, like Brand, who monetise their right wing views.

And for the billionth time Brand has not been banned from YouTube, he still has the exact same access to YouTube and the exact same ability to upload anything he likes to YouTube that every single one of us have.

Is Dan TDM very, very stupid?

I don’t know who that is, but if they are solely relying on YouTube for their income and have no backup plan then yes.

I don’t have a monetised YouTube account, but I am pretty sure there will be terms and conditions laying out legal obligations of both parties which are ticked when a person is at the point of being monetised.

I do not believe this looks anything like an employment contract, but I believe there should be legal intervention ASAP, to make it fairer for the content creators so they can’t be arbitrarily deleted or demonetised without recourse.

WTF at Russell Brand fans whining about his freedom of speech, which he still has, when he silenced so many women who tried to speak out.

Russell Brand is not a victim. He is a very wealthy, relatively powerful, multiple sex offender.

I have a monetised YouTube account and that's bollocks. The terms of service you tick is very clear that YouTube owe you absolutely nothing.

A terms of service is not remotely comparable to an employment contract.

If people who sell stuff on social media don't like the terms offered by one specific privately owned website, they can go to one of the many alternatives.

I had a seller account on Etsy and didn't like their terms so I deleted my account. And Etsy have the monopoly on their area even more than YouTube do - are you going to start a thread complaining about Etsy's monopoly being a freedom of speech issue and claiming that everyone on Etsy is a contract worker having their rights violated?

I presume you are just as happy for YouTube to demonetise people they regard as transphobic? Which they do.

If you're happy with: YouTube are just another private company and can do whatever they like, they you have to be fine with whatever they choose to do.

I'm not. Because YouTube isn't just another private company it's a worldwide broadcaster and controller of information so it's pet causes matter. Whether it's stopping people who have views they regard as transphobic making a living, or people who questioned the vaccine mandates, or some people accused of crimes.( not all strangely??)

I think the amount of power they have to control information they chose is dangerous.

I believe there should be legal intervention ASAP, to make it fairer for the content creators so they can’t be arbitrarily deleted or demonetised without recourse.

You want legal intervention to force private businesses to give money to anyone who wants it, and deny them any rights to choose who to platform and who not to platform?

So you want to leally deny companies any form of freedom of speech?

So you're against free speech?

I presume you are just as happy for YouTube to demonetise people they regard as transphobic? Which they do.

This is so fucking manipulative and transparent, it's laughable. Everyone knows that Mumsnet is very GC, trying to align Russel Brand, a misogynistic credibly accused of multiple rapes, with the GC movement is so blatantly manipulative and it's disgusting.

Brand hasn't been censored. He has the same free speech as anyone else. End of story.

You argue as if YouTube is just another private company like any other.
I'm sure you know it's not.

Yes legally they can do this. We all know that.
The question is: is this a healthy position to be in where a private organisation has so much arbitrary power over information.

You seem cool with it.
Many people find it scary.

It's not really about RB.

I presume you are just as happy for YouTube to demonetise people they regard as transphobic? Which they do.

*This is so fucking manipulative and transparent, it's laughable. Everyone knows that Mumsnet is very GC, trying to align Russel Brand, a misogynistic credibly accused of multiple rapes, with the GC movement is so blatantly manipulative and it's disgusting."

Oh don't be silly.
It's not disgusting it's a perfectly rational comparison.

YouTube can demonetise whoever they like.
Who they like to demonetise is both people they think are transphobic and some people accused of some crimes.

Are you happy with both of those? Just one of those? Or neither?

I'm neither.

I’m much happier with YouTube being able to make decisions I disagree with, that not being able to make decisions at all.

Forcing private companies to pay to air certain views could just so easily go the other way of forcing private companies to ban the airing of certain views. I mean who would have control over it - the government? Thanks but no thanks.

This case is very much about Russell Brand @MalagaNights. But if you want to expand it, I am happy for YouTube to demonetise any sex offender.

Sexually assaulting women is not the same as having an opinion.

Giving people recourse when they are arbitrarily exiled from the public square or denied significant income they’d taken a long time to build up, is not an infringement of the ‘rights’ of people with disproportionate power to be arbitrary and unfair.

As a GC feminist I'm disgusted and alarmed by the push and agenda to align the far right with GC feminism (this has been discussed in Feminist Chat multiple times over the years), and to exploit GC believes to defend a credibly accused multiple rapist is utterly beyond the pale.

The question is: is this a healthy position to be in where a private organisation has so much arbitrary power over information.

Brand hasn't been banned from YouTube. He hasn't been banned or restricted or censored in any way from uploading videos to YouTube. He has total freedom to upload anything he likes to YouTube, same as anyone else.

Are you happy with both of those?
I'm 10000% happy with a private organisation being allowed the freedom of speech to choose who they pay money to, because I believe in free speech. I don't believe anyone should be compelled to hire someone or pay someone money, because that is very dangerous. Suppose I own a coffee shop that hires musicians to provide entertainment, if you have your way, I should be forced to hire a TRA to sing songs like "Punch a Terf in the Face" against my will!

I also strongly disagree with the idea that YouTube is uniquely powerful or has the monopoly. I don't know why people are pretending that YouTube owns the entire Internet or is the sole way for people to share opinions. TikTok has over a billion users per month. Vimeo and DailyMotion are both very popular within their own audience base. Twitter/X is massively influential and a huge global platform to disseminate your views. There are tons of alternative social media platforms specifically created for right wing audiences, which have powerful political figures like Trump advertising them.

There are many, many alternatives to YouTube.

But all of that is irrelevant since posters seem to want to pretend that Brand has been banned from YouTube or censored from YouTube, which he has not been. For the millionth time: There is absolutely nothing stopping Brand from uploading anything he likes to YouTube. He has not been banned or censored in any way.

Russell Brand, as part of the 1% elite establishment, as someone with a massive platform that dwarves that of any of his victims, is the one who holds all the power here.

You can attack and demonise women all you like, you can use all the doublethink and manipulation you want, you won' convince feminists that an extremely powerful establishment figure sexual predator is being unfairly censored just because a company doesn't want to pay him money for his views.

I'm 10000% happy with a private organisation being allowed the freedom of speech to choose who they pay money to, because I believe in free speech.

That doesn’t make sense.

Paying money is not an expression of an idea or a form of speech.

Paying money is exercising power, not speaking.

A platform can define its own conditions of payment

At the same time another platform might take advantage of gaining followers who don’t want that

Someone linked to an article on Rumble on an another thread. They state they will not do cancel culture

In the end the followers decide

Trying to liken Brand getting consequences for his own actions to GC feminists being suppressed is certainly an interesting argument. Not sure it achieves what you want it to though.

Brand was able to do and get away with what he did because of his platform, status, and money. Why should he continue to be enabled? All the press attention will most likely be leading to more people looking at his YouTube out of curiosity (whether or not they support him). No way should he be able to profit off abusing others.

So you believe that I should be forced to hire a TRA who wants to sing songs titled "Punch a Terf in the Face" against my will?

You don't believe in freedom of speech at all?

Paying money is not an expression of an idea or a form of speech.
Then you contradict yourself. Brand hasn't been banned or censored at all. He can still upload anything he likes. YouTube have just said they won't pay him money for his videos anymore. They haven't said he can't use their site to platform his videos. No one has the right to demand that someone give them money for their views.

arbitrarily exiled from the public square

But that's literally just lies?? He hasn't been banned. He can still upload. He absolutely has not been "exiled" in any way, shape or form. And that's ignoring the ignorance and offensiveness of referring to a single private business as "the public square."

In the end the followers decide

Quite. So the content creators are screwed if the followers can’t be bothered switching platforms and follow someone else on the bullying, arbitrary, cancel culture platform. If the big bully gives the users the best experience and has the best integration with other services like google, then the creators have little hope.