Hacker News Reader

Comment by threeseed | Hacker News Reader

There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around.

Brand has been the subject of a joint investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 where the claims are backed by a significant amount of evidence vetted by their lawyers. These aren't reckless publications.

These claims have subsequently led to at least some of the involved parties submitting police reports alleging sexual assault. And from reports by the newspapers the expectation is that more parties are coming forward.

This is not trial by TV, social media etc. These are serious claims being taken very seriously because of the strength of the evidence presented to date.

As such, Youtube is absolutely correct here to err on the side of caution.

View on HN

Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn’t this exactly what trial by TV is? Trial by its nature presents evidence (strong or not), but the point of trial by TV is that the public, not the court, decides the legality of actions, where legality is interpreted broadly.

I take what what you've said about the journalists/investigation/lawyers at face value - fine, it's more than 'just an accusation'.

But I think what people are taking issue with is: what should private companies be allowed to do with that information?

Should his bank cancel his credit cards? Should taxis refuse service? What would 'erring on the side of caution' look like for other services?

Youtube is paying Brand.

It is much more akin to an employer/employee relationship and in that situation it is very normal for you to be suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.

Let's look at it the other way. Brand has a substantial following, but he doesn't get nearly as many views in such a short space of time for videos that aren't denying sex offences. The private companies could reward him for this notoriety by advertising, or not. Did they make the wrong choice?

And ultimately the actual consequences Brand is suffering from which people are expressing concern over aren't losing access to credit or mobility, it's losing ad revenue from his infamy, a booking agent and charity figurehead status. I don't think you can argue these should be inalienable rights, and it's especially tough to make a good case that the charity working to end violence against women should be forced to continue using the alleged rapist as a figurehead unless and until he is actually proven beyond guilty in a court of law.

Fair points, but it doesn't answer the question asked - what are his "inalienable rights" and where should that line drawn? GPs examples were good - banks, taxis, etc. Should his local cafe be allowed to refuse service?

I think I changed my mind a little based on the reply.

When I think about how I would use youtube (signup, upload some crap, maybe get a couple of views), it feels like a service which is notionally open to anyone. And I have a problem with someone being denied that, without it going to trial first. And even afterward, too - let the judge apply the sentence; don't have the public decide on extra ways to punish him.

But at his level of notoriety I concede that it's a bit more like him being on Netflix. I have no problem with Netflix deciding to greenlight or cancel shows based on the perceived whims of the public (even if they were morons to pull the episode of Community where Chang went Drow-face.)

> and where should that line drawn?

Even though my comment headed in that direction, it's hard to even imagine what that line would look like. I guess that's why case law exists.

> Brand has been the subject of a joint investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 where the claims are backed by a significant amount of evidence vetted by their lawyers. These aren't reckless publications.

Try as you might, the above will never create the certainty in an reasonable person's mind as an actual legal conviction would. As we all know, even some of most well put together cases fall apart under the scrutiny of cross examination.

> These claims have subsequently led to at least some of the involved parties submitting police reports alleging sexual assault. And from reports by the newspapers the expectation is that more parties are coming forward.

This is accurate, but to give context:

> A spokesperson for the Met said: "We are aware of reporting by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches about allegations of sexual offences.

> "On Sunday 17 September, the Met received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003. Officers are in contact with the woman and will be providing her with support.

> "We first spoke with The Sunday Times on Saturday 16 September and have since made further approaches to The Sunday Times and Channel 4 to ensure that anyone who believes they have been the victim of a sexual offence is aware of how to report this to the police.

It appears no claims to the police were made prior to or during the reporting, and the one there now is only due to the police actively following up. This is of course a serious matter, but does not appear to the the flood of claims that can be infered from the above.

And I don’t trust any of these “not-reckless-publications” on anything let alone to ruin someone’s life, let’s see who’s funding those lawyers and publications..

And if found guilty, I don’t see why he’s denied monetization, are you saying there no ex-convicts on these platforms and making money too?! This is stupid.

Let's be honest. Do you think Russell Brand would have been cancelled this hard if he was a boring centrist instead of spending the past 18 months talking about Ukrainian "bio-Nazi labs"?

Neurodivergent people are being persecuted for wrongthink.

He is alleged to have raped and sexually assaulted a number of girls. One as young as 16.

He is alleged to have passed along a girl to a known pedophile.

I actually don't care who the person is. If that is true then they should be in jail. End of story.

> . . . girls. One as young as 16.

16 is the age of consent in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_U...

Hang on a minute. He is accused of having had an "emotionally abusive and controlling relationshp" with a 16-year-old when he was 31. That is not the same as rape. The age of consent in the UK is 16, and 16-year-olds are legally sexually active all the time in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66831593

Brand has also not been accused of passing along a girl to a known pedophile. He is accused of having joked about sending his assistant to Jimmy Savile, on a BBC Radio 2 comedy show in 2007. (The BBC did not fire him for that.)

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/sep/17/russell...

He is being accused of rape [1] with a seperate girl.

And Saville is a known pedophile.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/a-timeline-o...

You said "He is alleged to have passed along a girl to a known pedophile."

He is not even alleged to have done that. What's been reported is that he joked on a BBC radio show about visiting Savile and bringing along his assistant.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/russell-brand-ji...

Five years before the allegations against Savile emerged, the older star told Brand he “doesn’t usually meet fellas but if you’ve got a sister then that’s ok”.

Brand explained he didn’t have a sister but instead named a personal assistant he could meet.

“I’ve got a personal assistant,” Brand told Savile. “And part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She’s very attractive, Jimmy.”

Savile answered: “Well, well that’s a good start. You could send her along to do some research.”

Asked by Brand what she should wear to meet Jimmy, the paedophile presenter replied: “I’d actually prefer her to wear nothing.”

Brand burst into laughter as Savile insisted: “There’s nothing wrong with that.”

There is no suggestion that Brand, Savile or Brand’s personal assistant ever met up following the interview.

Al Franken was required to resign from the Senate for allegations that were never (and never would) rise to the levels of the allegations against Brand.

What do you mean by “required “? Franken voluntary resigned to hold himself to the same standards he’d hold others to. He could have fought calls for his resignation but didn’t.

Sole reason for his political pivot: he knew the centrists and left wing people would let him be thrown under the bus if any of this came to light, but his new audience would think it some deep state lie that if anything proves Brand is even more truthful than they'd previously assumed.

Yes, Elon Musk did the same.

But it's not proof that he is guilty.

Yes it is not proof. But you are the one who came with speculations here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com