Normally, I don’t keep an eye on celebrity news. And since I don’t follow Russell Brand, I have only peripherally followed the accusations that currently surround him. But plenty of others are keeping close tabs on him, and many are talking about the fact that Brand did not find himself in this particular pot of hot water until he began departing from the “approved narrative.” Those people have drawn the conclusion that Brand would have been left to do as he pleased and perhaps even enjoyed cover from the media and the other powers that be had he simply remained compliant about hot-button issues, including vaccinations.
Now it would appear that one of Brand’s platforms, Rumble, may risk being banned in the UK over the accusations. The Times is reporting that the British government is not just eyeballing Brand but also Rumble. That country’s media watchdog, Ofcom, may start regulating the platform under the auspices of the Online Safety Bill, which is set to become law in October. The law says that platforms must prevent children from seeing content that is pornographic or promotes suicide, eating disorders, and self-harm. Violent content, videos that incite violence or promote racism, and content that is deemed “harmful to health” are also prohibited. That includes misinformation about vaccines.
Lord Allan of Hallam, who is a former Facebook executive who advised on the creation of the bill, commented:
“You can’t get out of this by saying ‘I’m a crazy American platform, that’s not ok’ and that somehow you get a free pass. They don’t get a free pass Their whole philosophy is freedom of expression . . . a kind of ‘screw you’. So when they get a letter from Ofcom saying, ‘Here are all the things you’re going to have to do’, it seems to me the most likely reaction is going to be they’re going to say, ‘Well, we won’t operate in the UK any more.’
The Times even said that if Rumble executives refuse to comply, they could face jail time if they visit the UK. Rumble chief executive Chris Pavlovski posted a response to X. Along with noting that the allegations against Brand are unrelated to his Rumble content, Pavlovski said:
Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK parliament. 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. [Joining] a cancel culture mob . . . would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK parliament’s demands.
YouTube has already moved to demonetize Brand over the allegations surrounding his sexual behavior.
If Russell Brand is guilty of the things his accusers claim, he needs to stand tall and address those issues. But in a statement last week, he commented, “The British government has asked big tech platforms to censor our online content. [This] bill … is a piece of UK legislation that grants sweeping surveillance and censorship powers.”
Tucked in with the accusations of sexual assault that have been leveled at Brand is a list of criteria that can be used to deem any content objectionable at need. I don’t think anyone would object to keeping sexual or violent content away from children. But it’s a problem when those same safeguards are applied to the airing of an opinion or sharing information that may run contrary to the current party lines, including on the subject of vaccines, gender, or immigration. Or pick any subject at random. The censorship would apply to the entire Rumble platform, not just Brand. And given the current state of affairs in the UK, I would say that scenario is a forgone conclusion. And in light of what we know about our own government’s approach to free speech in recent years, it could become SOP in the United States as well.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member