YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money off his channel — The suspension comes following the publication of rape and sexual assault allegations against the British star::YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.

  • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn’t be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well I’m sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?

      Right?

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Most corporations would suspend his account completely for damage control.

          They’re suspending his income. That’s theft.

          I made a joke comment, well since they’re taking his money, I’m sure it’s going to victims. Right?

          And you come along and point out that, in your belief, all corporations steal revenue from their content providers when they get accused of a crime. Show me one other platform that’s done this. Suspended revenue (i.e. stealing revenue) prior to conviction rather than canceling content.

          Note the BBC cancelled him. Google is still making money off an accused rapist. In fact, more. Because said rapist isn’t getting a cut.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, they aren’t. His videos aren’t being promoted or monotonized. Search and find some. Since they will not be getting promoted to you. You will see no advertisements directly before or during. Because they aren’t.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Has he been banned from using the Internet? No? Then you’re spewing bullshit. YouTube doesn’t have to host his content and advertisers don’t need to pay him for it. He isn’t entitled to shit. He can fuck off to some right-wing hellscape of a site that will platform him. That’s capitalism baby!

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        FYI, even if ISP’s were absorbed the the government and made into a utility as you suggest, Google would still own YouTube and still be able to demonetize whoever it wants.

        I’m not sure why this thread is such a swarm of brainless zero IQ takes.

        • Fantomas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again. Not a rapist until proven so in a court. And yes, I understand the difficulty in proving it and I believe him to be guilty, but not a rapist until proven so.

          I know there is a huge failing by the courts with these types of cases but we must avoid trial by media at all costs.

        • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As long as the content itself is legal, why shouldn’t they?

          Where do you draw the line? Rapist, Alleged rapist, Murderer, someone who committed assault, fraud? They’d have to demonitize a good chunk of the entertainment industry.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      For 700 years one of the central principles of British law has been that someone shouldn’t be punished without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.

      It’s scary how many people are willing to throw that out the window and behave like medieval peasants lynching witches.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who’s throwing him in prison? He’s isn’t facing any legal consequences as a result of this news. He’s facing social consequences from organisations that no longer want to be associated with him. He’s free to being a libel case in the UK if he wants to clear his name, but instead he put up a video claiming “they’re” out to get him.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one should see YT as a “livelyhood” as no one has a contract with them guaranteing income.

  • Blizzard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Google again pretending to be the moral police. Based on accusations of something that might or might not have happened 20 years ago. Apparently they don’t have a problem with him being on their platform or showing ads on his videos though, they just want to save some money and look like they’re doing the right thing (they are not).

  • flossdaily@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just a reminder that there are a far more allegations against Trump, and Trump has been found liable for rape, and yet Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s important to point it out. The other rapist is exalted when he should be getting shut down too.

          • exohuman@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah. Here:

            https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/a-timeline-of-sexual-assault-allegations-against-russell-brand

            Of all those claims, these stuck out:

            • a 16 year old in 2006 when he was 30 and gave her instructions to hide from parents. Underage is rape.

            • In 2012 he is accused of raping a woman who was treated in a Rape Treatment Center afterwards.

            • In 2020, there was another 16 year old and evidently his manager believed him at first and then issued a statement saying he was misled and terminated business with him.

            • Tatters@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              16 is not underage in the UK, where this is alleged to have happened.

              • Tesco@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                While it’s not “technically” underage rape, let’s be honest it basically is. No normal person thinks it’s acceptable for some in there 30s to have a relationship with a 16 year old.

                The law is there to protect say an 18 year old in collage, where it’s common for 16-18 year olds to be in the same classes, not for creepy 30+ year olds.

                • essteeyou@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not how the law works though. You can drink whatever alcohol you can legally buy the second you turn 18 (in the UK). The same applies for sex at 16. Maybe you don’t like it, but 16 is the age of consent for sex, with whoever else is legal.

              • Vashti@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Both child grooming and emotional and sexual assault are illegal in the UK, bizarre as this may seem to you.

                • Tatters@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I fully support them being illegal, why would you think that would be bizarre to me?

                  I merely pointed out, in the case of the 16 year old schoolgirl, she was not legally underage, no matter how shocking and disturbing we may find Brand’s behaviour, which I do. I don’t think she has made any claims of rape or assault against Brand, but others have. I don’t know what laws, if any, apply to his treatment of her, but I don’t think underage sex is one of them.

                  If we think something is already illegal when it isn’t, then it reduces the incentive to change the law - why make something illegal when you already think it is? Possibly the UK needs new legislation to vary the age of consent depending on the participants, as in other states.

            • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I only see allegations, no convictions. Remember what happened to Kevin Spacey and Julian Assange?

              For what it’s worth: I’m not saying he’s innocent. But to go from allegation to conviction, you’ll need a judge in my book. Not a trial by media.

              • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Well there are cases where one unnamed source makes an unprovable accusation, and then there are cases with multiple alleged victims over the span of a decade…

                • cricket97@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  don’t pretend like it would be impossible for the powers that be to conjure up people to make simultaneous accusations to get someone out of the public arena

              • exohuman@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, this is true about Spacey being innocent. I have personally known people who have made false allegations so I don’t doubt it happens.

      • flossdaily@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who maybe haven’t thought about it in these terms.

    • PostalDude@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine hating someone so much you bring him into any convo you enter. We get it bro, orange man bad, last I heard he is in jail or something. now shut up!

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no idea if he did or didn’t any of the alleged. But what happened to innocent u til proven guilty? Anyone accused of anything these days gets cancelled.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean there are definately people who havent been canceled. Reminder that Chris Brown is probably bigger than he once was and everyone knows hes actually beaten up people

        • ram@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Worst case scenario Ben Shepiro offers them a spot on the Daily Wire.

        • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say that ACTUALLY being “cancelled” is the exception.

          I’d argue it’s the opposite.

          Most working class people can suffer real consequences as a result of it. Those who are rich, famous, and/or influential can afford to just pivot.

    • garretble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google is not the law, and they can do whatever they want with their company.

      They don’t have to continue to pay him if they don’t want to — innocent, guilty, whichever. Just like they don’t have to continue to host nazi garbage or MAGA garbage if they don’t want to.

      • pokemaster787@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google is not the law, and they can do whatever they want with their company.

        Sure, but imagine your employer just fired you because of accusations before it ever reached trial. Illegal? No. Ruining someone’s livelihood even though they’re innocent legally speaking? Yes.

        Not defending this person, I genuinely do not even know who they are. But “private company can do whatever they want, your rights are only something the government has to care about” is a pretty concerning position to take. Not to mention they didn’t seem to take down or stop running ads on the channel, just stopped giving him the money. They’re profiting off of his content without paying him and using an unverified (but very possibly accurate) accusation as an excuse. That should be illegal.

      • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This only works because Youtube has the loosest form of contracts with its creators. Your regular employers can’t fire you because of allegations or hearsay (modulo local labor laws).

      • mx_smith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This puts Russel Brand in a position to sue for libel and slander as the court of public opinion has already declared him guilty. What happens if he is found innocent at his court case. What if they did this to Johnny Depp?

    • funkajunk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not sure why you’re being downvoted, nobody here knows if he did it or not.

      Unfortunately, that’s pretty much a wrap for him. Nobody has come back from rape allegations, even if they win in court.

      I don’t even like the guy, but I really dislike how we’ve regressed to the point where feelings are more important than facts.

      • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cancelled people don’t come back!? What fucking planet are you living on?

        Bret The Rapist Kavanaugh got everything he wanted after getting cancelled.

        Floyd Wife Beater Mayweather will still be remembered for his boxing career than the shit he should be remembered for.

        Louie Indecent Exposure CK came back to the Comedy Scene years after getting cancelled only to make disingenuous jokes about his behavior.

        These pieces of garbage should hang their heads in shame and suffer social ostracism until all their victims vocally and emphatically forgive them publicly.

        The fact we make excuses for and defend these “people” because of their social status and a myriad of legal loopholes that allow for them to walk free with their heads held high while their victims are questioned and vilified is fucking pathetic.

          • Pagliacci@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It was a defamation case in which the courts determined that Trump made false statements by denying the allegations because he most likely did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll.

            No criminal case was brought because it’s beyond the statute of limitations, and since the legal bar in a criminal case is higher I don’t think any prosecutor would bring those charges even if statute of limitations wasn’t an issue.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

            At the time when Carroll alleges Trump raped her, the statute of limitations for rape in the state of New York was five years.

        • cricket97@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          There was no real evidence though. Just he said she said. Let’s not pretend like there aren’t huge incentives to make false allegations and that there are entities out there capable executing on that plan. I say this as someone who is not a fan of Trump.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean Deshaun Watson came back with 230 million dollars guaranteed after several sexual harrasment allegations. Public image wise hes gone, but that doesnt mean he still doesnt make a shit ton of money (and all of it guaranteed)

        • sucricdrawkcab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Several? Man was at 26 allegations and he is still currently being sued. The Browns were stupid enough to pay him thinking he was going to save them and to a vast majority of football fans joy he isn’t playing well. I wouldn’t be shocked if he goes broke.

  • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s kind of weird how so much of this thread seems to think a monetized YouTube channel is a human right or something

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not the point.

      If someone made an allegation against you, would you expect your employer to sack you first and ask questions later or would you like the chance to defend yourself legally first?

      • Trae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude, people get fired all the time after being arrested or accused of a heinous act. All of this well before ever going to trial. Businesses don’t have to and often won’t keep someone on that is a risk to their company, culture, or brand identity.

        It absolutely sucks that people can lose their livelihood over “he said / she said”, but the fact is that it happens all the time.

      • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If I was was accused of something awful yes I’d be fired. That how life works, doesn’t make it fair. The reason? Because 9 times out of 10 it’s true.

        Why do you want a potential rapist to get special privileges?

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Literally every human on the planet is a “potential rapist”.

          So by your rhetoric nobody should be able to be employed or have a YouTube channel.

          • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            By your incel logic only proven rapists would ever suffer a single consequence of any type. You’d probably support a law that bans even making the accusation publicly until after a conviction. And this is one of many reasons women should avoid you.

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your now assuming my political position and not addressing my words. We can disagree, I just ask you not insult me.

              • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah pretend not to understand the point I’m making, intentionally read words literally and ignore context, but it’s indeed me who is insulting here

                • jet@hackertalks.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We cannot have a functional discussion if personal attacks and insults are involved. At that point how can we establish good faith discord?

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think that the democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty is special treatment, nor do I think that the right to a fair trial is special treatment.

          God forbid, you ever get falsely accused of anything nefarious, you’ll deserve the treatment that you condone.

          • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And by extension, you obviously expect to be accused of something like this, because you are bending over backwards to defend a probable rapist.

            Innocent until proven guilty was NEVER applied anywhere but a legal context and your willful attempts at ignoring that fact when presented it, indicate you’re exactly as suspect as you originally came off. Great job.

  • Petter1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not the fucking job of YouTube to judge and punish. We have judges and the Criminal Code for that. We should not let us ruled by corporations!

    • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh my God shut up. No one has the right to force a private company to pay them money. YouTube can do any fucking thing they want

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but they clearly feel there is enough smoke to be worried about a fire and are entitled to cut ties. It may be the case if they don’t that people take their impartial inaction to be supporting him. They have ethics and morality clauses in their TOS.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, but as a private firm it is there decision what they host, promote and show adverts against. He has no contract with YT guaranteeing an income, thats not how it works. If he wants a guaranteed income he should get back on TV with a contact, but he Burt those bridges when he become a conspiracy grifter.

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea I understand that, but so many content creators get thrown under the bus by YouTube, twitch, etc. that I think there should be a law protecting individuals from big cooperations that they are dependent on. I know, it’s different in America compared to where I live, here, if you have someone Working for you and you fire that person, depending how long this person works for you already, you have to pay salary for up to 3 months. (There are few reasons that allow cancellation of contract immediately) After you got fired, you can go to a place called “Arbeitslosenkasse” where you get 80% of salary going forward as long as you try to get a new job.

        So maybe thats why I find it odd when YouTube just flick a switch upon obligations…

        Btw. I don’t know that guy the post is about and highly doubt that he is innocent given the infos I have seen yet.

        • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          We have the same laws in the UK, but he’s self-employed. Can you not be self-employed where you live?

        • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean its the same in the UK with employment protections, but YouTubers wouldn’t be covered by that as they’re not employees and don’t have contracts. Google don’t really have to share any revenue with uploaders as they’re already providing the infrastructure and storage for free.

          No one should rely on that as income and just see it as a bonus, to other income streams.

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Advertisers won’t want to be shown on his videos while this is ongoing.

      Keeping them happy is in fact literally their job.

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agree, there’s actual rapists and incels on YouTube that need banning before an alleged rapist or SA.

      and they might have tainted any jurors ifa case did come about.

  • cricket97@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a bit hard to accurately gauge these sorts of things when there is such a large incentive to lie about this stuff to get someone out of the political arena. This is inclusive of all sides. I don’t know how we should properly go about these things but the truth is that there are entities with LOTS of money and connections who can ruin anyones life without any hard evidence in an instant. None of us know what happened, it’s up to the court of law to properly determine things. But you’d be ignorant to think that the powers that be wouldn’t throw rape accusations at anyone who is inconvenient to those in power.

    • Specal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you watched the piece, there is video evidence of him being a disgusting piece of shit regardless. There was footage of him forcefully kissing a presenter and undoing her bra. The police failed to investigate. These women were failed by lazy, misogynistic police, just like they always are.

      To top it off, slander laws in the UK are very strict, no one is going to post accusations like this without serious evidence to back themselves up.

      • cricket97@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        When the evidence presents itself I will make my judgement.

        no one is going to post accusations like this without serious evidence to back themselves up.

        This is quite the statement to make. I argue that accusations like this get posted all the time without serious evidence to back it up. I will wait for the evidence to come out of him raping someone before I make a judgement in either direction.

    • Kirkkh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The ‘lots of money’ you’re taking about is literal nickel and dime shit to these people. I admit, it’d be actually exciting to think some aged celebrity has “rocked” the establishment to the point of evoking a retaliatory smear campaign. That would be actually interesting. But really they just don’t care. There isn’t nary one executive that’s lost an ounce of sleep over this. They don’t care about those women (they never did), they don’t care about Russell (they never did). What happened is he came up at the end of some conference call somewhere—that Brand’s allegedly yadda, yadda—and they were like “yeah I don’t care at all, just do whatever fuck ‘em.”

      • cricket97@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There have been documented cases of rich people being informed they will have accusations thrown at them in the public eye if they do not pay out. Every time a public figure criticizes a politician to the point of possibly swaying some public opinion, I promise you that their team is working overtime to find any dirt possible to shut that person up. There’s a whole industry around it where firms are paid big money to dig up (and less scrupulously, fabricate) shit on people who go against their interests. It’s not that far fetched.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.

    Brand has developed a major following on his YouTube channel in recent years, amassing more than 6.6 million subscribers while cultivating a persona as a “wellness” and conspiracy influencer.

    The BBC also reported it had removed “some programmes” featuring the former actor that were “deemed to ‘fall below public expectations’” from its streaming services, iPlayer and Sounds.

    “There is limited content featuring Russell Brand on iPlayer and Sounds,” the BBC said in a statement published by the U.K. public broadcaster on Tuesday.

    Other platforms hosting material from Brand, including Spotify and Luminary, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from NBC News.

    The police department told NBC News it received a report of sexual assault against Brand on Sunday, a day after the publication of the investigation and the airing of a documentary on the subject on Saturday.


    The original article contains 542 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does YouTube have a precedent of blocking people who have allegations? I know little about Russel and his actions, but the way this whole thing has blown up, has me raising an eyebrow. I know his content is exposing of the establishment so I am wondering if we are seeing something here to take him down? Ultimately, justice needs to take place and until then, he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

    • serratur@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Becase people support innocent until proven guilty? I find it reasonable to support that, even though I feel like this case might end with the proven guilty part.

  • sndrtj@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My dad got sucked into the Russell Brand woo during the pandemic. Maybe he’ll finally come to his senses now this guy is an obvious fraud?

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Low chance, more likely he’ll think Brand is some kind of martyr. Brand immediately dove into the Andrew Tate angle.

      It’s simple: if you’re a media personality that uses your influence and money to groom and/or sexually harass or assault women, simply tell your audience that the government is trying to silence you, because “you’re a dangerous revolutionary too close to the truth” or anything like that really.

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Look, it wouldn’t surprise me if these allegations were true given the kind of person he is and his past behaviour.

    But I’ll just bring up the example of Kevin Spacey. A man whose career was thrown in the bin over allegations that were untrue. Obviously, we don’t learn anything at all.

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kevin accuser status:

      "She was hit by a car in March and died in the hospital shortly after. No driver was charged for the incident. "

      “In September, another accuser died, although his name is unknown. The man, who was a massage therapist, was suing Spacey under the name of “John Doe” for sexual assault. Shortly before the trial began, he died. A source informed Variety that he passed away from cancer. Because of the massage therapist’s death, his case against Spacey was dismissed.”

      “On Christmas Day of 2019, Ari died of an apparent suicide. No further details have been disclosed as of yet.”

      So I don’t think Kevin Spacey is a good example of “innocent man”

      Also some people need to read more about the “rumors” that “support” these allegations as they are “open secrets” in Hollywood. For any accusations, a little bit of research can provide very amazingly details about these cases from early 2000 in blogs and gossip Hollywood magazine.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget how the government weaponised similar accusations against Julian Assange.

  • Fluid@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since when did innocent until proven guilty stop being a thing? Not defending anyone here, just seems that principle is all but forgotten in modern society.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do realize that innocent until proven guilty only applies with the government, right? Normal people and companies do not have to extend the same luxury. Hell our military doesn’t even give that luxury.

      • ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been accused and then shunned after some valuables went missing at a house party.

        I was the only minority. Nobody dared to stand up for me and everybody just pointed fingers to the weakest individual.

        Branded as a thief despite my life long upstanding morality, career, ethics.

    • enthusiasticamoeba@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s only a legal principle - he’s not in jail, is he? Individuals and organizations can do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with modern society.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fuck it, I’ll bite. Let’s fight in the bailey:

          It is when it’s rape and you’re a right wing creep who has been known for decades to be a creep.

          We don’t live in your nightmare world anymore where rapists can exploit the principles of the old empire to get away with subjugating everyone else.

          Innocent until proven guilty is an anachronistic idea that is way past its time. We accept credible accusations from rape victims as evidence now because we are no longer primitive sexists who assume women are lying about everything. We have video now. A lot of rape cases don’t actually need trials because the dumb fuck rapists record themselves doing it and put the videos on Facebook. Rapists are rarely ever arrested or charged despite overwhelming evidence because of sexism. The founding principles of the Constitition themselves are outdated, increasingly irrelevant, and do not reflect the reality of today’s world with today’s values.

          The statistical nature of rape means the fact this guy’s being cancelled and more importantly charged over it means he’s guilty. The odds are too low for him not to be.

          So we trust the accusations, and unless evidence comes out proving them false, you don’t have shit to say.

          Now go ahead and waste everyone’s time debating the value of innocent until proven guilty, I’ll play along, fuck it.

        • Eximius@lemmy.lt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          He should be able to sue youtube for a nice settlement (if he is in the right), maybe? Idealistically, that should keep such bullshit in check.

          But then again, youtube probably has “Youtube reserves the right to do fucking anything to you” in its TOS that everybody just skips.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Youtube cutting off their monetisation is not the same as putting the person in jail.