The UK takes an authoritarian stance on free speech
Sexual misconduct allegations against actor and commentator Russell Brand have prompted the UK's latest assault on free speech
Allegations of sexual assault have prompted the UK government to once again show its utter disdain for free speech.
Russell Brand, the British comedic actor known for appearing in films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek, and who has more recently become a political commentator, was the subject of a recent Sunday Times investigation accusing the comedian of rape, sexual assault and abuse.
I won’t opine on the veracity of the claims against Brand, because that’s beside the point of this article. What’s important is how the British government responded to the allegations — by sending letters to social media platforms demanding that Brand be demonetized in a move that’s downright Orwellian.
One of the letters was sent to the YouTube alternative Rumble, where Brand boasts 1.4 million subscribers at the time of this writing. The letter, sent by Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Committee, reads in part:
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr. Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today.
However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches. While we recognize that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.
We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.
As British commentator Konstantin Kisin put it, “this is very, very wrong.”
If I’d gotten that letter, I would have written back that it was none of her damn business.
Rumble’s response was a bit lengthier than my hypothetical one, but it did a great job excoriating the UK government’s overreach:
Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament.
While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with the content on Rumble’s platform.
Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet — meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.
We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don’t agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.
Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.
Shame on YouTube for capitulating to the UK government’s demands. This incident underscores the necessity for alternatives to the video sharing giant, such as Rumble and Odysee, to protect against increasing censorship from tech giants including YouTube and Facebook.
The fact is that regardless of Brand’s guilt or innocence, no government on earth has the right to pressure a private platform to penalize one of its users because of unproven allegations that have not even been tested in a court of law. Even were Brand to be convicted of the crimes of which he’s accused, it would still be none of the government’s business. Criminals are allowed to exercise their free speech rights as long as the speech itself does not violate the law.
This is just the latest of numerous examples of Britain’s animosity toward free speech. In August, a 16-year-old autistic girl was arrested for saying an officer looked like “a lesbian like my nana.” Because the UK does not enjoy the same free speech protections that we do in the U.S., the offended officer was able to have the girl arrested for a “homophobic public order offence” — something that would be unthinkable in America.
Police officers are granted special privileges that the general public don’t have. They are able to use force to uphold the law. Officers entrusted with that kind of responsibility must have extraordinarily thick skin. People should be able to hurl whatever vitriol they like at officers in the course of their duties. That’s what freedom of speech is all about: Being able to criticize the government how we see fit without fear of retribution. But the UK’s thin-skinned officers can haul you off to jail merely for uttering words at them. That’s criminal.
Freedom of speech is an essential part of any democracy. Unfortunately, current events have shown time and time again that so-called democracies around the world lack the kind of robust free speech protections that exist in the United States. If the UK wants to call itself a free democracy, it should put its money where its mouth is. The UK government should shut up and let its citizens do the talking.