Comedian and former Hollywood playboy turned social media provocateur Russell Brand has been accused of sexual abuse dating back more than a decade. Although he has not been charged with anything by law enforcement, let alone convicted of anything in a court of law, that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media from publicly lynching him for his alleged crimes.
In less than a week since the allegations were made public, Mr. Brand has been dropped as a bad habit by virtually everyone. His ability to earn a living was cut off by YouTube, which demonetized his show based solely on the allegations.
However, one organization has very publicly stood by its beliefs and refused to bow to the cancellation crowd.
Social media video site Rumble, where Russell Brand also has a channel for his show, not only refuses to question the mafia, they also told the UK to go away after sending a letter to the CEO asking some disturbing questions. Regardless of your thoughts on Mr. Brand, thoughts on his guilt or innocence, whether you watch Rumble, this story is important because if they can do it to Russell Brand, they can do it to you.
The British government is now asking TikTok if @rustyrockets can monetize its content on that platform.
This was never about Russell Brand.
This was a political pretext so that governments around the world can collaborate with social media companies to gain total control… pic.twitter.com/emcy0AE3j7
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) September 20, 2023
Why is this House concerned?
This week, YouTube demonetized Russell Brand’s channel on their platform and suspended him over the allegations against him. Following this move by the social media giant, Dame Caroline Dinenage of the media committee of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom sent letters to the CEOs of TikTok, X and Facebook asking them to suspend Mr Brand, just as YouTube had done.
A similar letter was sent to Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski.
In the letter Dame Dinenage writes:
“While we acknowledge that Rumble is not the creator of the content provided by Mr. Brand has been published, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.”
Why would Parliament be concerned if someone is making money from the content on Rumble? Mr. Brand is a free man who, as far as Rumble or anyone else is concerned, has done nothing illegal on his channels.
Support conservative voices!
Sign up to receive the latest news political news, insights and commentary straight to your inbox.
RELATED: Comedian turned Rumble commentator Russell Brand calls out left-wing hypocrisy
Dame Dinenage continues with the not so subtle question:
“We would appreciate it if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand can monetize his content, including his videos related to the serious allegations against him. If so, we’d like to know if Rumble plans to join YouTube and explore the possibility of Mr. Fire to make money on the platform to suspend.’
What is the business of this Parliament? It should alarm everyone that a Western government doesn’t care if someone has a social media account.
Fortunately, Mr. Pavlovsky is not about that life of government censorship.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
The Chairman of Culture, Media and Sports was paid by YouTube and then writes to Rumble to deplatform Russell Brand: pic.twitter.com/E6rsmv5dOW
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) September 21, 2023
Note the gap
In response to the letter they received from Parliament, Rumble responded very publicly with a hard pass:
“We emphatically reject the demands of the British Parliament.”
I just became a Rumble fan. https://t.co/XXkW0bUT7c
— Dean Cain (@RealDeanCain) September 20, 2023
The response addressed their competitor YouTube’s decision to suspend Mr Brand, stating:
“Rumble stands for very different values. We are committed to the vital cause of defending a free internet – that is, an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens are or are not entitled to a platform.”
My favorite part of the response, though, is when Rumble calls out all the other organizations that fell like a house of cards to the cancellation crowd:
“While it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture crowd, doing so would be contrary to our company values and mission.”
This person from Parliament should have been able to imagine how Rumble would respond, given their history of flipping the bird on anyone who tried to censor their platform.
RELATED: Free Speech Platform Rumble Sues New York Over Blatantly Unconstitutional ‘Hate Speech’ Censorship Law
Impressive track record
Rumble is not new to government pressure to censor their site. Last year, France demanded that the CEO close Russian accounts on the video platform.
In response, Chris Pavlovski wrote:
“The French government has demanded that Rumble block Russian news sources. Like Elon Musk, I will not move our goalposts for any foreign government.”
Rather than give in to criminal government demands, the company instead cut off access to the platform in France because, as Mr. Pavlovski said, “France is not important to us.” Rumble also took on New York State last year and won.
New York tried to enforce a law requiring social media sites to create vague policies on how to handle content that could be construed as “defamatory, derogatory or inciting violence” against what they call a “protected class.” Additionally, the law would require social media sites to allow complaints from visitors about “hateful content,” with platforms and creators required to address each complaint.
Rumble recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, owner of YouTube. They claim that Google is deliberately burying Rumble links, which, as the complaint actually states, has suppressed Rumble’s reach:
“The success of Rumble…has been far less than it could and should have been as a direct result of Google’s unlawful anticompetitive exclusionary and monopolistic conduct.”
RELATED: YouTube alternative and free speech champion Rumble refuses France’s request to withdraw Russian news sources
Rumble has no problem engaging with governments and Big Tech to keep their site free of censorship. But Mr. Pavlovsky must be careful… it may only be a matter of time before the crowd comes after him.
Rumble is in possession of an email in which Google says it will post live streams of major election events on Google. But when the livestream of the Republican debate was from a competitor, there was a ‘miscommunication’ and that didn’t happen.
— Chris Pavlovski (@chrispavlovski) September 20, 2023
A political takedown?
Since the allegations were made against Russell Brand, he has been demonetized on YouTube, lost his book deal, abandoned by his management agency, charities have abandoned him and his tour has been cancelled. What Mr Brand is accused of includes rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse that occurred between 2006 and 2013 at the hands of four women.
The initial investigation was conducted through British news channels and has just been handed over to the police for investigation. At the time of this article, Mr. Brand has not been officially charged with a crime, let alone convicted.
In response to the letter received by Mr Pavlovsky, X owner Elon Musk wrote that:
“Disgraceful behavior of this censorship minister!”
Mr. Musk rightly explained that “accusations do not mean someone is guilty.” Unfortunately, when they embrace beliefs that are unpopular with the world’s progressives, that’s what happens.
Before the allegations were made public, Mr. Brand released a video in which he professed his innocence and said this key line:
“It has been clear to me, or at least it feels to me, as if there is a serious and coordinated agenda to control these kinds of spaces and these kinds of voices – and I mean my voice along with your voice.”
Naturally. They don’t like competition.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 15, 2023
I do not know whether Mr. Brand is guilty of the charges leveled against him. Still, he deserves to have his side of the story told and is innocent until proven guilty.
It is very suspicious that the UK government has such a vested interest in his ability to express the above freely. Mr. Brand has been openly critical of the pharmaceutical industry, the progressive left, the war in Ukraine and other issues considered taboo to publicly criticize.
It seems to me that this could be a case of purposeful defamation or opportunistic de-platforming. Either way, I’m glad Rumble is staying the course.
It will only be a matter of time before we are found guilty until proven guilty in the court of law, just like in the court of public opinion.
Now is the time to support and share the resources you trust.
The Political Insider is ranked number 3 on Feedspot’s list of ‘100 Best Political Blogs and Websites’.