Law russell brand allegations

[shockaholic12]

How many have over 6.5 million followers?

How many accounts have that many and do political commentary debunking the establishment narratives?

They don't care about SSSniperwolf posting makeup videos or talking fashion....

It's the combination of his follower count, view count and the subjects he addresses that have him in the crosshairs of the elites.

If he had less than 1 million followers, they wouldn't care. If he spent all his time talking about the benefits of veganism, they wouldn't care. It's obviously the combination of his popularity and debunking the government and corporations that makes him their target.

All these stats about his followers would matter if he had some remotely novel take on anything, but he’s rehashing the same talking points that almost every conservative pundit in the media and every joe rogan wanna-be with podcast or social media account had been also screeching about daily for a long time. So it’s actual impact is not great. He’s not dropping any company’s stock price whatsoever, he’s just cashing in on an echo chamber for clicks. There’s not millions of folks out there waiting for Russell brand to tell them if they should get vaxxed.

Gwyneth Paltrow has a huge following but her suggesting people go vegan and railing against processed food isn’t going to drop the stocks of food companies by billions because she’s not saying anything novel every other granola influencer hasn’t already been telling her audience. Some big celeb from the left coming out to against Trump isn’t going to change millions of Americans minds on him because it’s the 100000000th person they’ve heard weigh in on it.

 

[shockaholic12]

We are actually in agreement here. It's super fucked up and should carry harsher penalties in the United States, which it now does. Back then it didn't.

In fact, in many countries, the potential penalties are far more severe.

Before the case was dropped, Julian Assange was charged in Sweden for rape based on unprotected consensual sex where the woman didn't know he wasn't wearing a condom (until no evidence was presented and the accuser turned out to be a CIA asset).....

That said, the "no means no" allegation took place in California BEFORE states started passing anti-stealthing laws. Stealthing was the name given to the practice of removing a condom without telling your partner or lying about putting one on in the first place.

That said, if the allegation is true, it would only be a misdemeanor based on when and where it took place.....

We don’t agree, you said “ I would argue at worst it was a misdemeanor battery and a scummy thing to do but definitely not sexual assault or rape.”

I think tricking a woman into unprotected sex against her will is sexual assault and far from just “scummy”.

 

[PhitePhan]

All these stats about his followers would matter if he had some remotely novel take on anything, but he’s rehashing the same talking points that almost every conservative pundit in the media and every joe rogan wanna-be with podcast or social media account had been also screeching about daily for a long time. So it’s actual impact is not great. He’s not dropping any company’s stock price whatsoever, he’s just cashing in on an echo chamber for clicks. There’s not millions of folks out there waiting for Russell brand to tell them if they should get vaxxed.

Gwyneth Paltrow has a huge following but her suggesting people go vegan and railing against processed food isn’t going to drop the stocks of food companies by billions because she’s not saying anything novel every other granola influencer hasn’t already been telling her audience. Some big celeb from the left coming out to against Trump isn’t going to change millions of Americans minds on him because it’s the 100000000th person they’ve heard weigh in on it.

So your argument here is essentially that celebrity endorsements don’t matter?



What an asinine take…

 

[Scerpi]

We don’t agree, you said “ I would argue at worst it was a misdemeanor battery and a scummy thing to do but definitely not sexual assault or rape.”

I think tricking a woman into unprotected sex against her will is sexual assault and far from just “scummy”.

Is that your opinion or is there a rape law correlating what you're saying.

Honestly, I don't know. Dumb move on his part... could have got her pregnant and either gave/received a STD. Very real possibility with the number of women he was fucking with back then.

And if there's a law against it... He's definitely fucked here since there appears to be solid evidence of him doing it and then apologizing for it afterwards. No defense

 

[shockaholic12]

So your argument here is essentially that celebrity endorsements don’t matter?



What an asinine take…

Quantify matter here. I responded to a poster who speculated Brand costed biotech companies millions to billions with his extremely played out takes which is absurd.

 

[avenue94]

completely missed this about Depp/Heard lmao

Are you seriously saying Depp is guilty just because he lost a defamation trial against the Sun?

No, all I said is he lost a defamation suit because his legal argument wasn't good. As far as I can tell, they were both pretty rotten to each other.

The lady was talking about a condom for consensual sexual activity which Brand didn't put on our took off during sex..... She was not saying that the sex wasn't consensual.... They had sex on occasions both previously and afterward.....

"“I’m like, no, that’s not happening, I don’t care, that’s not happening, we’re not doing that,” she says. “I tried to get away from him and I slipped away from the wall. And then I went to another wall that had a painting on it. A huge painting. And my bag got actually stuck underneath that, and it’s still on my arm. And at this point he’s grabbing at my underwear, pulling it to the side.”
Nadia alleges that she told Brand to get off her and that she wanted to leave, but he carried on. “I’m stuck underneath the painting and he’s pushing up against me,” she says. “He’s a lot taller than me. And he has that glazed look in his eye again. And I can’t move. And I told him, ‘Get off, get off.’” Nadia claims that Brand pushed her up against the wall and raped her, without a condom."

Read past headlines that are trying to frame Brand as some sort of serial rapist. I would argue at worst it was a misdemeanor battery and a scummy thing to do but definitely not sexual assault or rape. The sex itself was consensual.

Ironic since you clearly haven't read the original article. Do you want to admit that you are commenting like a dumbass about a story you haven't read?

P.S. Removing a condom during sex without consent is rape as well.

 

[avenue94]

Is that your opinion or is there a rape law correlating what you're saying.

Honestly, I don't know. Dumb move on his part... could have got her pregnant and either gave/received a STD. Very real possibility with the number of women he was fucking with back then.

And if there's a law against it... He's definitely fucked here since there appears to be solid evidence of him doing it and then apologizing for it afterwards. No defense

Have you actually read the original reporting from the Times?

 

[avenue94]

It's easy for someone to tell you "told ya so". Thankfully husband and I have enjoyed his stand ups, I've enjoyed his books, when we lived in the UK, his quiz show stuff.

I feel fucking terrible for his pregnant wife, this is supposed to be a nice time.

All you saw was an entertainer playing a role and public persona, and you assumed that was his character and real life personality when the cameras weren't on.

 

[brothir]

Concrete thesis: Governments collude with social media and mainstream media to slander or silence anyone who doesn't parrot state-approved narratives.

Evidence: Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté Dr. Jay Battacharia, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Koury.

EDIT: This all started with Alex Jones. Even though I don't agree with Alex Jones on just about anything, I was sounding the alarm bells back when they banned him. It always starts with the most fringe, then censorship, once justified, spreads on the whim of those in power. Censorship has only ever been a tool for those in power to silence those who speak against their wishes.

These people are all smeared in mainstream media and/or suppressed or outright censored by social media at the behest of government(s).

I'm not trying to prove anything that isn't already public record.

YouTube has convicted rapists that post monetized content. In order to demonetize a YouTube account, YouTube is supposed to cite a violation of the terms of service. In Brand's case, there isn't one. Whenever Brand is beginning a segment that broaches a YouTube-censored topic, he switches over to Rumble to publish it.

This is government censorship using a private corporation as a proxy; it's illegal in the United States and Google is an American company. They sure as hell should not be bowing to the wishes of a foreign Parliament.

I strongly suspected that there was government influence involved in attempts to deplatform Brand, though I suspected it would be difficult to prove. I was wrong; they are so brash, they sent letters to TikTok and Rumble which were subsequently leaked to the public.

Tons of social media personalities have been accused of a variety of taboos and crimes. Russell Brand is being specifically targeted because he undermines establishment narratives.

Once again, applying Occam's razor, which is more likely:

A) Government, MSM and social media are colluding to deplatform someone who undermines establishment narratives (as they have done countless times before to others who have done the same)

Or

B) The MSM got really bored one day, chose Russell Brand at random and spent months tracking down and bothering his ex-girlfriends looking for dirt on him, which coincidentally had the unforeseen outcome of getting him demonetized despite not violating the YouTube terms of service.

I don't see how this is complicated. They do this shit all the time, especially so over the last 3 years where it has gotten borderline tyrannical.

This really isn't any better. Your attempted evidence isn't evidence, and you're still injecting assumptions like "I strongly suspected that there was government influence involved (...)". That works contrary to Occam's Razor. Your A) and B) are neither good applications of Occam's Razor: your A) even tries to sneak in an additional assumption via parenthesis! I challenge you to find a statement with less assumptions than "The allegations against Brand are being believed on their own merits, and he's getting demonetized because YT wants to protect its image/profit". In order to do that you'd have to actually understand Occam's Razor, which you don't. You'd also have to stop being a conspiracy theorist.

 

[giusti825]

Where did this info come from?

Kim Iversen's live stream last night. She will be one of the creators being smeared in the hit piece.

 

[RoastBeast]

Kim Iversen's live stream last night. She will be one of the creators being smeared in the hit piece.

It wouldn't surprise me.

I find it odd that so many people are in favor of censorship as long as it benefits their opinion on a particular subject. They're just frogs being slowly brought to a boil.

 

[giusti825]

All these stats about his followers would matter if he had some remotely novel take on anything, but he’s rehashing the same talking points that almost every conservative pundit in the media and every joe rogan wanna-be with podcast......

Wrong. His commentary doesn't play the worn out red team vs blue team garbage.

His commentary focuses on collusion between corporations and the establishments of both political parties that comes at the detriment of ordinary working people.

He is neither Republican nor Democrat, or even American for that matter.

If you'd ever watched his commentary, you would realize his politics is framed not in conservative vs liberal terms, but in establishment vs working class terms.

The online right is still very much in a framing of "Republicans good, Democrats bad". Brand doesn't do that. He realizes they are both funded by the same companies and agree in matters of war, economics and serving their donors over the American people. That is nothing like the Ben Shapiros and Crowders of the online right.

 

[shockaholic12]

Is that your opinion or is there a rape law correlating what you're saying.

Honestly, I don't know. Dumb move on his part... could have got her pregnant and either gave/received a STD. Very real possibility with the number of women he was fucking with back then.

And if there's a law against it... He's definitely fucked here since there appears to be solid evidence of him doing it and then apologizing for it afterwards. No defense

here in California it’s civil defense. Don’t know about England. I assumed it was criminal and find that too lenient. I mean it can directly result in life long diseases or having a child form inside of you.

 

[Snubnoze707]

Wrong. His commentary doesn't play the worn out red team vs blue team garbage.

His commentary focuses on collusion between corporations and the establishments of both political parties that comes at the detriment of ordinary working people.

He is neither Republican nor Democrat, or even American for that matter.

If you'd ever watched his commentary, you would realize his politics is framed not in conservative vs liberal terms, but in establishment vs working class terms.

The online right is still very much in a framing of "Republicans good, Democrats bad". Brand doesn't do that. He realizes they are both funded by the same companies and agree in masters of war, economics and serving their donors over the American people. That is nothing like the Ben Shapiros and Crowders of the online right.

I swear, none of these people have even watched Russell Brand talk. The fact that he's being made out as a Conservative in here is one of the most bizarre things I've seen as of late. He's to the left of the Sherdog left...

 

[giusti825]

No, all I said is he lost a defamation suit because his legal argument wasn't good. As far as I can tell, they were both pretty rotten to each other.
"“I’m like, no, that’s not happening, I don’t care, that’s not happening, we’re not doing that,” she says. “I tried to get away from him and I slipped away from the wall. And then I went to another wall that had a painting on it. A huge painting. And my bag got actually stuck underneath that, and it’s still on my arm. And at this point he’s grabbing at my underwear, pulling it to the side.”
Nadia alleges that she told Brand to get off her and that she wanted to leave, but he carried on. “I’m stuck underneath the painting and he’s pushing up against me,” she says. “He’s a lot taller than me. And he has that glazed look in his eye again. And I can’t move. And I told him, ‘Get off, get off.’” Nadia claims that Brand pushed her up against the wall and raped her, without a condom."

Ironic since you clearly haven't read the original article. Do you want to admit that you are commenting like a dumbass about a story you haven't read?

P.S. Removing a condom during sex without consent is rape as well.

I don't believe California law defined it that way 13 years ago.....

It wouldn't surprise me.

I find it odd that so many people are in favor of censorship as long as it benefits their opinion on a particular subject. They're just frogs being slowly brought to a boil.

I am a free speech absolutist. I don't believe any point of view should be censored, even hate speech. People have a right to express unpopular opinions .... That's the whole purpose of the first amendment. It's not to protect speech that everyone likes, it is to protect the most controversial.

Anyone who doesn't defend speech rights for the speech they find most deplorable doesn't believe in free speech at all.

 

[giusti825]

I swear, none of these people have even watched Russell Brand talk. The fact that he's being made out as a Conservative in here is one of the most bizarre things I've seen as of late. He's to the left of the Sherdog left...

His political framing of the elites vs the working class is far closer to Marx than to Reagan. But anyone attacking the Democratic party from the left gets called a right winger. Anyone calling for peace in Ukraine gets called a Putin puppet.

The establishment has gotten so out of touch that they have gotten really bad at propaganda. People are seeing clear through their shit and it's scaring the hell out of them. That's why they want to deplatform dissident voices.

 

[DEVILsSON]

Quantify matter here. I responded to a poster who speculated Brand costed biotech companies millions to billions with his extremely played out takes which is absurd.

Have you never seen short attacks against certain companies? Literal hit pieces put out against companies that caused stocks to crater in a single day producing millions or billions in losses. Most of the time it's too costly to go after the people of these hit pieces however the reputational damages are huge.

Brand is influential enough to piss off some powerful entities. His soundbytes I am sure are played in many contexts so it's not out of realm of possibility his takes cause actual significant losses.

 

[Beechwood]

Slow down with the Russell Brand takes

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ustice/slow-down-with-the-russell-brand-takes

excerpt:

....Compare that to Tara Reade's allegations against President Joe Biden, which Democrats have essentially ignored .

Personal feelings for, or political gain from, those accused of sexual misconduct have a way of strengthening or diluting concerns about their supposed crimes. But the fact that someone in question may be an ally means nothing.

I've never cared much for Brand — his personality has always been off-putting. But Russell Brand's years of promiscuity don't automatically make him a predator, however much we may dislike him.

At the same time, the fact that some well-known figures on the Right, such as Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson, have come to his defense means little. Relatedly, if there were proof showing Kavanaugh to be a sexual predator, Republicans should have dropped their support immediately, regardless of the high stakes. No excuses.

Crimes of sexual assault are especially egregious. Because they are so personal and violating, it's proper to investigate in order to determine the truth. Anything less than the truth undermines real victims and their stories and harms the accused who turn out to be innocent. Too often, partisan tendencies assign guilt or innocence based on nothing concrete.

No amount of popularity, celebrity, like, or dislike matters more than the facts.

 

[avenue94]

I don't believe California law defined it that way 13 years ago.....

It would be defined as sexual battery, and wobbler. Due to the confined space, it would probably be a felony and put the offender on a sex offender list. ergo, sexual assault. Also are you going to just pretend you didn't read the article and realize the accusation was for rape? I'm happy to provide a link to the story you didn't read if you'd like.

 

[PhitePhan]

Wrong. His commentary doesn't play the worn out red team vs blue team garbage.

His commentary focuses on collusion between corporations and the establishments of both political parties that comes at the detriment of ordinary working people.

He is neither Republican nor Democrat, or even American for that matter.

If you'd ever watched his commentary, you would realize his politics is framed not in conservative vs liberal terms, but in establishment vs working class terms.

The online right is still very much in a framing of "Republicans good, Democrats bad". Brand doesn't do that. He realizes they are both funded by the same companies and agree in matters of war, economics and serving their donors over the American people. That is nothing like the Ben Shapiros and Crowders of the online right.

Brand is a super MAGA grifter confirmed!

Obviously he’s just going against the world’s most powerful people and huge companies so he can get rich!

<{chips}>