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?

and to exploit GC believes to defend a credibly accused multiple rapist is utterly beyond the pale.

No one is doing that. Just making the point the principle you are espousing of YouTube unrestrained power, will apply to people and situations you support and those that you don't.

He is accused but we didn't know how credible it is because he hasn't been tried or given a defense.
It's been on a TV programme. Concerning yes. Needs police investigation yes. Guilty? We don't know.

You seem to apply your rationale based on your own beliefs with the principles a moving target.
You are 'disgusted' when this is pointed out.

I want the principles to be clear and consistent so that moral arbiters such as yourself never have power.

@CoughingMajoress I am quoting my own point from earlier here. You can see, I am being consistent, not contradicting myself.

Making personal attacks and lying doesn't strengthen your case.

Everyone can see what you're doing, and see what agenda you're pushing.

You will NEVER browbeat GC feminists into submission and you will never bully us into supporting the elite establishment, no matter how hard you try to demonise us and use doublethink to pretend that somehow we're the ones in power, and the 1% powerful elite in the establishment are the helpless ickle victims.

I want the principles to be clear and consistent so that moral arbiters such as yourself never have power.

Hear, hear!

It's exactly the same thing.

Things YouTube decides it doesn't like get demonetised.

It doesn't like 'transphobes'
Or
Some people accused through the media of sexual assault.

If it's up to YouTube both are equally fine to demonetise.

So people who own private business shouldn't ever be allowed free speech, because wanting free speech makes you a "moral arbiter"?

So you agree that if I give a musician permission to busk in my coffee shop, and that musician turns out to be a TRA performing songs called "Punch a TERF", that I should be denied any capacity to remove that person?

I shouldn't be allowed any form of free speech at all?

(That's not even a good analogy, since - for the billionth time - YouTube have done nothing to ban or restrict Brand from posting content.)

You are conflating ‘free speech’ with ‘arbitrarily exercise power’.

So you're confirming that I should be forced against my will to give money to someone who wants to sing "Punch a TERF" in my private business?

Also if you are a YouTube can do whatever they like because they're a private company purist, I presume you're ok with Helen Joyce being removed?

If they can do what they like it's not just about demonetising surely you believe they can just remove whoever they want too? It's their company right?

You seem to be straining a bit there.

Please confirm whether you believe I have the right to decline to pay someone wanting to use my platform to push TRA views or not.

Yes or no. Simple question.

Making personal attacks to divert from being asked a very simple question is transparent manipulation.

You've repeatedly stated that you believe private companies should have zero ability to decide who they want to pay and not pay, and you've repeatedly made very nasty personal attacks on women and GC feminists, accused us of being "in power", accused us of being "moral arbiters" and all other kinds of manipulative personal attacks.

It's reasonable to ask where you draw the line.

Should private businesses be compelled to pay Neo Nazis?

You are also conflating a coffee shop with the largest platform for sharing information in the world.

But if you really were a YouTube can do whatever they like purist and support them shutting down anything they don't like, at least that would be consistent.

But your outrage at an example you don't like gave you away.

You're not arguing from principle you just think things you don't like should be banned and don't seem to understand how naive and dangerous that is.

Yet more gaslighting.

All you've done on this thread is hurl accusations at everyone else.

Sorry that was in response to @MalagaNights

Everyone should have the right to free speech but with that right comes responsibly and consequences for what you say.
Nobody gets a free pass and sometimes what you say gets you in trouble. That's the risk you take

Yes, @romdowa - maybe you could communicate that to the young women in Iran, I’m sure it would be appreciated.

What exactly what your intention in starting a thread in Feminist Chat to defend a rapist, push MRA views, try exploit GC feminism by trying to align GC views with powerful sexual predators who are part of the elite establishment, and hurl nonstop abuse, slurs, and insults at GC feminists when challenged?

Do you actually think screaming bigoted slur terms at women will make anyone believe that you're on this thread in good faith?

But if you really were a YouTube can do whatever they like purist and support them shutting down anything they don't like, at least that would be consistent.

Yes, as I've said repeatedly, I believe that private business should be allowed to decline to pay money to anyone they dislike or disagree with for any reason (with the exception of discrimination against protected classes), as long as they are not censoring their ability to share content. I actually think that social media platforms need to do more to remove offensive content, eg Neo Nazi propaganda.

You are also conflating a coffee shop with the largest platform for sharing information in the world.

So your argument is that whether a private organisation is allowed free speech or not depends on how big they are? At what size do you lose the right to be allowed to decide who to pay money to? So if I own one coffee shop, I'm allowed to not hire someone to sing "Punch a TERF", but that coffee shop spreads to become an international chain, I suddenly lose that right?

Anyway it's not true. Facebook is larger than YouTube, other social media platforms are not that far behind YouTube. TikTok has a billion users per month. Plenty of platforms created specifically for people with right wing beliefs are far more likely to generate a specific audience.

All of which is irrelevant, since Brand hasn't been banned or censored in any way. He can still upload anything he likes to YouTube.

So you got bored with trying to conflate powerful establishment sexual predators with GC feminists, and are now trying to conflate a man being told a private business doesn't want to pay him anymore (while still have complete and utter free access to upload anything he likes) with the actual serious censorship and violation of free speech of women in Iran?

That's beyond the pale.

This is very strange. Who are you speaking to? Me? The OP? Someone else? Or everybody all at once?

Usually when someone quotes a post, they are responding to the post they are quoting.

Have you never used a forum before?

That might explain why so many of your posts are being deleted. (I'm sure you'll start screaming censorship over that, too.)

Your posts were deleted because they used abusive terms which are widely considered slurs for protected minorities (the word you used is widely considered to be an offensive slur term against people with mental illness/learning disabilities), and because MN bans making personal attacks on other posters.