British comedian and actor Russell Brand now faces the ire of the United Kingdom's parliament, which is petitioning the video streaming platform Rumble to de-platform and de-monetize Brand's account based on anonymous claims made against him.
Mind you, not a single one of these accusations has been verified, nor has Brand been officially charged, let alone convicted, of committing any crimes. Even so, the UK parliament wants Brand removed from Rumble, TikTok, and whatever other platforms he uses.
This all hearkens back to the #MeToo movement when women were told by the establishment that they could simply make up tales and falsely accuse men of sexual assault, resulting in the rest of the world having to just believe them without any evidence.
Once again, the establishment is attempting to pull this same trick by calling on social media companies to destroy Brand's online presence simply because some no-names who refuse to come forward publicly claim he sexually assaulted them.
(Related: If Brand really did commit these alleged crimes, where is the evidence?)
The UK Parliament sees itself as a dictatorship that can push Big Tech around
In a letter dated Sept. 19, 2023 from Dame Caroline Dinenage DBE MP, chair of the UK parliament's Culture, Media and Sport committee, someone named "Theo" is addressed concerning the allegations made against Brand "in the context as a user of TikTok with more than 2.2 million followers on the platform."
"The Culture, Media and Sport is raising questions with the broadcasters who previously employed Mr. Brand or production companies who employed him, to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today."
"Although Mr. Brand no longer appears on television," the letter continues, he now has a follower base on social media, including on TikTok where this weekend he republished his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches. We recognise that TikTok is not the creator of the content published by Mr. Brand, and his content may be within the Community Guidelines set out by the platform, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform."
In other words, the UK parliament wants to stop Brand from making a living by lobbing serious allegations that, who knows, are maybe true. The timing of it all and the way his accusers are going about it are a little too convenient and obvious, though.
"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetise his TikTok posts, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him, and what the platform 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."
Dinenage sent a similar letter making similar demands to Rumble, which journalist Glenn Greenwald addressed in his own letter to her asking what legal precedent is allowing her to make such demands and expect them to be fulfilled.
"Is there a legal basis that allows members of Parliament to try to direct or pressure social media companies to ban citizen [sic] for alleged acts where they have never been charged with any crime, let alone found guilty of one?" Greenwald asked of Dinenage.
"Do you see any dangers in having political officials attempting to pressure social media companies to ban or demonetize individuals on allegations that have never been asserted by any legal authority in any court, let alone judged to have been valid?"
The latest news about how #MeToo and other anti-male initiatives are being used to tear down prominent male figures who have strong followings can be found at Twisted.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
