So his home government has blacklisted him without even due process, and he still hasn't even been charged. A government is reacting to news stories. It's supposed to be the other way around. What a clown world. When will he get charged?
shareYou are talking about financial decisions made by companies that had contracts with him. Many of these decisions are made daily between entities without making headlines.
He is free, and hos civil liberties have not been restricted in any way. He still has a voice, and he can still communicate his thoughts. The only difference now is that he is not getting paid for it.
And yes, there is a defamation campaign against him, but it comes with enough data that any interested observer can judge by himself if he is at fault or not.
So what exactly is the problem here?
The problem is making these decisions without charges. It's right in the title, and in the my short post. Did you read it? Do you need me to type slow...e....r? You're a rapist. You raped me and it hurt! Now the media is going to push you can't make a living, in cahoots with your government to persuade easily persuaded corporate scum who hate any bad press and will bury any negative press (and call anything that goes against them misinformation to censor it), all before charges have been made or a grand jury decides to see if it should go to court. You don't see a problem with this? If not, I'm going to keep telling people you raped me, until you do. So stop raping and CONFESS!
shareI had another member in this site tell me I was a rape apologist for saying we should wait until facts come out in court.
shareYes, representatives of the government should wait for due process and not scramble to horn in on scandal that will be largely forgotten in a month.
But it's absolutely true that private companies like Youtube can do whatever they like to a subscriber who's bad for the company's image, demonetize him or ban him completely, there's no law protecting his right to a Youtube channel. And there's also no law that keeps the Court of Public Opinion from deciding en masse that Brand is a dirtbag. And frankly, Brand's immediate worries are with Youtube and public opinion, and neither has any obligation to give him due process.
Unless you know...people condemn those actions instead of bootlick them. Does google/youtube want the Bud Light treatment? Everyone can go over to Rumble. It's no biggie.
shareIf by "everyone", you mean a tiny minority of assholes like yourself, I'm sure youtube can live with all of you leaving in a snit.
But of course, Rumble will also have its own terms of service, and will be free to demonetize or ban anyone who they decide is bad for the company's image. All internet providers are the same, there's no constitutional right to internet access, or any legal right to access or profit from any specific platform.
Rumble made their statement. They are not kowtowing to this obvious to anyone with a brain, bullshit attempt to quiet anyone talking against Big Pharma and Corporate corruption. Enjoy your Bud Light tranny but you'll never be a woman, or a man.
shareWell, don't let youtube's door hit your ass on the way out!
shareDecisions have not been made .
It's just a company demonetizing another company. Thats all.
Charges when?
So his home government has blacklisted him
The government actively sent out requests to demonetize him. Wow. I didn't realize there were so many bootlickers around here. It's so pathetic. There's no point to even save y'all. You deserve what you get.
shareNo. 'The government' did nothing. A parliamentary select committee (which is not the government, but a cross-party institution) sent out an inquiry to a social media company to see how they were going to respond to a high-profile individual in light of an imminent piece of UK government legislation with which said social media company will have to comply.
There are no value judgements in anything I'm telling you. I'm just providing you with factual information.
When somebody throws the booky-wook at him.
shareWhy is it whenever someone is accused of rape or sexual assault, everyone on the right of politics now rushes out to defend them? Particularly the far-right.
No one on the left defended Andrew Cuomo when his sex assault claims came out. They basically all said he should resign. And obviously no one on the left defended Trump's sex assault charges.
The only people who defend all these celebrities, when they're accused of rape, are far-right figures like Rupert Murdoch goon Piers Morgan or child sex trafficker Andrew Tate, or Tucker Carlson.
And the rest of you internet clowns who live in MAGA world I suppose follow suit of those idiots.
Here's an idea, look at the evidence for yourself and see the truth. Don't just listen to what your social media cult-of-personality figures say on "X" or "Truth" Social , and don't just adopt the knee-jerk conservative opinion because , believe it or not, it's not always correct.
/owned
Rape is the left's dog whistle because women have no misgivings, reservations about lying for attention and money (all of Trumps accusations were bullshit but front and center in the media, meanwhile while Hilary was running, Epstein died so no one could hear how often Bill went to the island). Just like blacks do the same with racism. This is why both weren't given rights before the idiot box brainwashed liberals into thinking they were oppressed. Thousands of years of experience dealing with these demons and washed away in less than a century and for what? Did things get better?
shareEpstein was jailed and died after the 2016 election.
sharehttps://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/07/09/us/politics/09dc-trumpspstein1/09dc-trumpspstein1-facebookJumbo-v2.jpg
Funny about that.
It is funny, but out of context don't you think?
shareNo, I think it might explain a lot.
shareLike what? Two people taking a picture together.
They knew each other, were both in similar social circles, Epstein being a member of Trump's clubs/properties.
Also, Trump broke all ties with and revoked Epstein's membership to Trump's clubs after hearing about Epstein trying to seduce a 12 year girl at Mara Lago. Also, he came forward, provided testimony about Epstein to the FL's FBI (on or around 2009).
Hell, I'm not even a Trump supporter, but at least I try to stick to reality -- well, a bit, anyways. But, like I said before, funny pic.
Going out of context is one of the far-right's favorite tactics in the world today. Also known as "What-about-ism".
Just bring up another completely unrelated topic to distract from the original subject.
They do it ALL THE TIME.
Yep, and that's that. Nothing else to see about that, right.
shareNot *everyone* in the right-wing rushes to defend accused rapists, just a mouthy minority.
Who seem to be 100% straight and male, and I'd bet they're all white too.
Oh I don’t know - maybe it has to do with the fact that Russell Brand has spoken up regarding facts about Big Pharma lying about the covid scamdemic versus people like Howard Stern openly talking about wanting to have sex with minors for many years and he never once faced any consequences for it?
Maybe it’s the fact that we believe in innocence until proven guilty, whereas the cancel mob believes in guilty and never proven innocent? Or even proof of innocence is irrelevant to their narrative? Or maybe they just want to destroy anyone who says something they don't like even if it's true?
Maybe it’s the fact that YouTube is providing the left with a blueprint? All you have to do to ruin someone’s life is accuse them of rape and sexual misconduct, and they will lose everything? No charges, conviction, or evidence is necessary?
Yes? No? Maybe?
The allegations were made on a Channel 4 documentary, by actual journalists.
It wasn't just random Youtube or twitter comments from social media, like the type of thing you respond to and take as fact. Youtube is just what Brand used to spout his anti-vax conspiracy theories to the unsuspecting public.
The "cancel mob" doesn't exist, that's an idiotic concept invented by the right.
I can tell from all the things you said that you are someone not to be taken seriously. I can also tell you don’t value the first amendment and freedom of speech for your opposition. The stupidest thing you said by far is that the cancel mob doesn’t exist. There’s evidence that it exists, everyone knows that it exists, and they can see it with their own eyes.
This is just typical of the left and their trolls who do their dirty work for them - first you will deny something is happening. Then you’ll admit that it’s happening sometimes. Then you’ll say that it is happening but it’s a good thing. Then you’ll demand everyone celebrate it. I will not subscribe to that detestable gaslighting.
It's obvious that most of the Brand shills and bootlicks either don't work for a living or have no understanding of the adult work place.
If a serious allegation is made, before charges or disciplinary action is enforce, an employee or contractor is almost always subject to a suspension of their normal roles and privileges while the matter is being looked into.
What's happening to Russel right now is that it has been made difficult for him to cash in on any clickbait he wishes to publish about the allegations.
He'd much rather make vids exposing big pharma and how the government and media work together to defend them. He was doing fine with that. He doesn't need to use these bogus allegations to boost his views.
shareHe hasn't exposed a thing. He's just repeated what others have said.
Crowing that a rich man doesn't need the extra income he will inevitably grift from those who are willing to provide him with it is an immensely weak argument.
Who cares who said what first as long as it gets said?
Where is it written that you can’t share the same message someone else has shared?
What is this, kindergarten?
I never said he can't. I'm saying it makes him nothing special, undermining the theory that he's like Assange or someone who is exposing people.
shareAgain, who cares if others have said it too? If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.
And yes, anyone who says the unpopular (but true) thing about Big Pharma is exposing them. Someone else may have said the same things before, but Russell Brand has an audience that others don't necessarily have and they wouldn't otherwise get to hear these facts.
Also, you're complaining that Big Pharma is getting TOO MUCH exposure for their lies and their crimes? What planet are you living on? I say the MORE people who say these things about Big Pharma, the better.
So why would Big Pharma care about Brand telling and audience things they already want to hear about published facts?
What are you talking about? When did I complain about Big Pharma getting too much exposure? I'm just downplaying the significance of Brand's so called "exposure" of them.
Because Big Pharma doesn’t like it when you expose inconvenient facts and medical coverups, that's why. Seriously, you had to ask?
You keep repeating the same mantra “Russell hasn’t said anything others haven’t already said”. So what? That’s a bad thing now? Who cares who says what first as long as it gets said? Someone out there may be hearing it for the first time from Russell Brand.
I’m not sure why you have such a big problem with this, and I have to assume it’s because you don’t want Big Pharma getting exposed. That’s why I asked why you were complaining about Big Pharma having too much exposure for their crimes. It really sounds like by your logic, information can only be stated once and no one is allowed to repeat it ever.
Again I ask you: Who Cares?
As for his "Politics" if you can call it that, he's basically an anti-capitalist, practically an anarchist, talking about communal sharing of everything. Only he has no idea how to articulate any of his ideas in real society, he's not an intellectual , he's no Noam Chomsky. He's just a parrot, who repeats things he hears, as another poster said.
What has he ever said that "exposed" any thing? Talking about big Pharma?
Everybody knows Big Pharma is a problem. We knew that long before "Russel Brand" made his stupid podcasts (or youtube videos, whatever). If you really think that a Comedy Central stand-up comedian exposed anything about "big Pharma" (I doubt you even know what that means) You are completely deluded.
I started a thread asking for any evidence of him actually exposing something that we don't already know., materially influencing any issue or inspiring any person who wasn't already on board and receptive to hearing his pseudo-intellectual faux outrage.
If the theory that these allegations are being made up to suppress his recent fame and supposed influence (despite the allegations being made long ago) then, logically, there should be an observable effect that he's the cause of. But there is none. All he does is preach to a choir who take comfort in his suspicions.
It's not coincidence that for years before he ever gained any fame in the US, he was always known as exactly the kind of person that are considered intelligent by dumb people.