12/18/2023
English comedian, writer, actor, and activist Russell Brand was recently accused by numerous women of a variety of allegations including assault, manipulative relationship behavior, and other sexual allegations. Brand, a man known for his flamboyant and loquacious behavior, and his heterodox opinions on a litany of political topics, denied all allegations of non-consensual sexual behavior.
In the post-#timesUP & #believewoman social environment, these allegations have reawakened debates about due process of law, justice, punishment, the production of truth-values in relation to such allegations, & government/corporate control over what information is true and what is not-true.
In this video, I’m not going to attempt to adjudicate the mostly anonymous claims against Brand, but I will attempt to answer the above questions by starting with a simple query: how much process is due Russell Brand by the state, by individuals on the internet, and by private corporations?
Also, if you like this video, please consider giving a super thanks or donating to the channel. Youtube increasingly has a habit of demonitizing or limiting ads on videos like this using their horrible censorship trolls, so any help is greatly appreciated.
In September of 2023, several news outlets including the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches published the allegations of at least four or five women. All of the allegations are from events prior to at least ten years ago. Another anonymous woman in New York recently filed a civil suit against Brand for allegedly assaulting her on the set of the 2011 movie Arthur.
At least three of the women have remained anonymous, while one, Jordan Martin, wrote a book detailing their relationship in 2014. All of the allegations date from at least over a decade ago. No criminal charges have been filed against Brand, though the Thames Valley Police in South East England have opened an investigation on Brand regarding allegations of stalking in 2018; and, the Metropolitan Police of London have stated they’ve open an investigation regarding a number of sexual offenses. The Metropolitan police didn’t specifically say they were investigating Brand, but they were certainly thinking it very loudly. Of course, Brand is innocent until proven guilty of any crimes in a court of law, and mere investigations are not the same as convictions. And, you know, the police be lyin all the time and are super sus in general.
Predictably, those who oppose Russell Brand’s beliefs have condemned him as a rapist & sexual predator who deserves to be immediately canceled and expelled from society for all time. Brand’s agent dropped him as a client. Youtube de-monitized all of Brand’s videos on all of his Youtube accounts preventing him from gaining any money, though Youtube can still generate revenue for itself off of his work. The BBC also removed some programs featuring Brand.
On the other side, those who agree with Brand’s heterodox belief systems or those who are skeptical of sexual assault allegations (especially anonymous ones) have rushed to Brand’s defense. Many have stated this is a coordinated effort by the establishment to silence a popular voice with anti-establishment beliefs.
Others have said we must suspend judgment until after a judicial inquiry has occurred, because the traditional understanding of justice is that prior to punishing someone, you must conduct some type of “fair” process where accused and accuser(s) can speak their truth. We are reassured that the purest truth regarding this matter, or a truth that is true in and of itself, can only be found within the framework of due process of law. These apologists would like us to believe that the truth of the judicial system is the highest form of truth waiting to be discovered and that the presumption of innocence renders facts in a state of flux until they’ve been put to the test of a judicial inquiry. They seek an adversarial method, a process whereby accusations are allowed to be submitted publicly by known accusers and the accused is allowed to refute them. This is an arena where different truths battle it out for supremacy. This is called a critical attitude where we demand tests of accusations and are ready to accept refutation if the evidence supports it.
The judicial inquiry comes from…. Spoiler alert! The judicial system: the arm of the state that adjudicates wrongs between people. The judiciary exists because society expects a certain standard, a process whereby grievances can be assigned as legitimate or not, and this process is the judicial system. And, honestly, if we didn’t have such a system, we would probably devolve into a free for all where if you called my mama a hoe or stole my heifer, I’d gather all the kings horses and all of the king’s men to come curb stomp the shit out of you.
French Philosopher Michel Foucault described the function of judicial practices as:
“the manner in which wrongs & responsibilities are settled between men, the mode by which… society conceived & defined the way men could be judged in terms of wrongs committed, the way in which compensation for some actions & punishment for others were imposed on specific individuals.”
Michel Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms,” in Power: (The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Vol. 3), trans. R. Hurley, ed. J. Faubion (New York: The New Press, 2015), 4.
Society relies on judicial techniques to answer the questions: “Who did what?”, “Under what circumstances?”, “At what moment?”
So, what did Russell Brand and his accusers do? Under what circumstances? At what moments did these things occur? None of us were there when these accusations allegedly occurred. These are the “he said/she said” incidents where we have two sets of subjective truths claiming the legitimacy of objectivity. The events which occurred are no longer actual. The judicial inquiry, this privileged method that allegedly guarantees the best method of truth acquisition, was invented precisely as an attempt to extend the actuality of the no longer occurring offense to our present time so it can be offered to the gaze, to knowledge, to objectivity as if the offense were still present. The judicial inquiry requires those who may be in the know of an event long past (Brand, his anonymous accusers, other people familiar with these events and relationships) to swear fealty to the truth and submit their knowledge to the test so that we all may look on at what allegedly occurred.
“I swear, before God, the Holy Spirit, and the blood of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph Stalin that I will spill all the T and leave no crumbs.”
Foucault says the inquiry is a reactualization of what had transpired, making it present, tangible, immediate, and true, as if one had witnessed it themselves.
Now, due process of law only applies to the government’s actions towards judicial subjects, not the actions or beliefs of other individuals or society at-large. Due process is answering the question how much process is due by the state in order to determine with accuracy whether 1) a judicial subject is liable for an action, and 2) if liable, what punishment is the government permitted to impose on said subject. The various methods, techniques, and rules that accompany a trial are the very process due to any subject threatened by the government. (If the subject is indigent, the government must provide an attorney at no charge; if the subject claims to be mentally unfit, the government must perform tests to determine this; if the subject invokes their right to trial by jury, the government must assemble a jury of impartial peers; if the subject chooses to remain silent, the government cannot compel them to speak.) The stakes in a criminal trial are incredibly high. The state can literally unalive you, which in the lingo of kids these days is not clutch. No cap. Therefore, it stands to reason that the government must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether a person is guilty or not.
In most of the West, due process of law guarantees a minimum of three things occur before the government can infringe upon a judicial subject’s right to life, liberty, & property. One: you are given notice of the charges that are being levied against you. Two: you have the opportunity to rebut those charges. And three: having some sort of neutral decision maker to hear the charges and make whatever ruling is appropriate. In the judicial system, due process is the magic armor of legitimacy that enshrouds the trial allowing a (theoretical) form of truth to develop. Apologists decry this “era of #MeToo”, where alleged abusers are tried, convicted, & executed not by the cold, disaffected–almost sterile–judgments of the judicial system, but by the barbarous, irrational public body itself. The emperors have “no clothes on” with the death of due process. Specters of rabid lynch mobs, trial by media or trial by public opinion are conjured to scare young men.
Again, due process of law only applies to the government’s actions towards judicial subjects, not the actions or beliefs of other individuals or society at-large. According to Andrea Curcio, law professor at Georgia State University, “Due process does not mean you have the right to be believed, just that you have the right to be heard.” Whether people like it or not, there are no constitutional protections against a bad reputation. Also, some of the allegations against Brand are not criminal, just immoral. If a judicial inquiry is the only way to gain the purest truth about an event, do these allegations just remain in a state of epistemic limbo unless a civil suit occurs? No. Just as I don’t need a judicial inquiry to determine whether Russell Brand is an asshole or not (he’s literally admitted to being one on multiple occasions) or whether he has political beliefs that are harmful or not.
Philosopher Lewis Waller, who runs the Youtube channel Then & Now, stated on Twitter “’Trial by media’ is a vacuous phrase. If you make a living online, people are going to comment on you. It might have excesses and get ugly, but it’s inevitable. The cognitive dissonance it takes to criticize it while also claiming to be a warrior for free speech is something. Criminal trial is not the only kind of trial. People want to determine other things too – should a person be employed by the media? How should it be reported on? What are other’s positions on it? It’s the marketplace of ideas, people. Or better yet, the carnival of ideas.”
Trial by media or trial by public opinion is merely one of the methods used by society to determine who did what? Under what circumstances? At what moment? When we talk about due process in the societal sense, the question is not one of criminal liability, but societal liability; according to Shira Scheindlin, former United States district judge, “the question is whether given the quality of the allegations, the person against whom the allegations have been made should remain in the position of trust, confidence, and responsibility which he (and it usually is he) currently holds.”
The process due to Russell Brand by internet platforms that host (and make money off of) his videos, the broadcast networks that show movies, tv shows, and television specials, and the public at large is a far smaller than the process due by the state. If parts of society don’t want to support Brand (it may be detrimental to their own reputation and bottom line to associate with someone who has allegedly committed non-consensual sexual acts at one point in their life), it’s because there was a judgment call to make by these groups, a judgment call that isn’t burdened with a high level of due process.
Still though, Brand apologists will insist we follow the ideals of due process of law, of the judicial inquiry. We say, “Don’t rush to judgment, because one should be presumed innocent.” Due Process in the societal sense looks to due process of law as an ideal of the best ways to determine any allegations put forth by an alleged victim. This is the ideal way to get to the purest truth, the truth in and of itself.
While due process of law does facilitate a kind of truth production, these truths may obfuscate what actually occurred. In some instances, truth-values invented at court can change several times; or, as is much more common, the facts carry multiple truth-values that contradict each other but compete over which perspective is most dominant. In the Surviving R. Kelly docuseries, a white juror from R. Kelly’s 2008 trial revealed that despite several black women, like Lisa van Allen, testifying to the sexual abuse of minors by Kelly, the juror didn’t like the way she looked or dressed so he disregarded everything she said. This is an instance where van Allen’s facts were shrouded by forms of racism and sexism.
We can look at the O.J. Simpson trial where he was acquitted at his criminal trial but found liable in his civil trial: which truth should we rely on, especially when the burden of proof in a criminal trial is much higher than a civil trial? There is the trial against the Central Park 5 where they were found guilty at the criminal trial only to be completely exonerated years later, or innumerable other examples where it is clear in retrospect that the judicial system got it HORRIBLY wrong.
Even the amount of money one has can go into whether a person is found guilty or not. Multi-millionaires like R. Kelly, O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Russell Brand, and others can afford the best possible lawyers. But if you’re poor, you’ll likely be given an overworked and underpaid public defender in your battle against the well-funded and very powerful state apparatus. Most jurisdictions in the United States still have cash bail, meaning that you must pay a ransom to get out of jail pre-trial despite the presumption of innocence. If you can’t afford it, you rot in jail as you lose your job, your housing, and your kids not because you’re guilty, but simply because you are what is scientifically referred to as, poor as fuck. Many people in these situations will take a plea bargain, plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit just to get out of jail. This is hardly a system where the pure truth can be found.
Returning to Russell Brand, some of these allegations are not new. The allegations by Jordan Martin were made over a decade ago, and while she claims there was non-consensual acts done to her, she has not appeared to reach out to law enforcement to make it a criminal matter. Some of the other allegations are not even in question, meaning we don’t actually need a judicial inquiry to determine the truth of the allegation. It’s not in dispute that a 31-year old Russell Brand engaged in a three month sexual relationship with a 16-year old. The age of consent in the United Kingdom is sixteen, so this isn’t a case of criminal activity (though the anonymous women is now saying she was forced or coerced into engaging in some sexual behavior). Regardless of criminality, most people in the West seem opposed to sexual activity between adults & minors; with the exception of France because of course France is the exception. Conservative political commentators Megyn Kelly & Candace Owens, both of whom have heavily criticized the MeToo/BelieveWomen movement, have spoken out saying they believe the anonymous allegations against Brand and are especially disgusted by his behavior with a minor regardless of the legality.
Honestly, there’s many instances regarding the wrongs committed between men where we don’t even need a judicial trial to adjudicate the truth. Take the fact that former-U.S. President George W. Bush raped and committed numerous war crimes against Iraq (and a lot of other people) under false pretenses. Or, that former-President Barack Obama raped and completely destabilized Libya leading to the return of slavery in a country that was one of the most stable and had some of the highest standards of living on the African continent. Glenn Greenwald, who is one of the most consistent voices on the whole planet for due process has, rightfully, blamed these Presidents and their administration for the war crimes they committed, and he didn’t need a judicial inquiry to determine the truth of these allegations.
Let’s say Brand did commit the alleged criminal offenses he’s been accused of. The allegations against Russell Brand, like all allegations, have their nuances. As was said, not all the allegations are new. The newer allegations are all anonymous, though there appears to be documentation like medical reports and text messages that validate their claims. All of the allegations come from a time period prior to 2014. Brand has long admitted that there was a period of his life where he was a drug and sex addict, when he engaged in misogynistic behavior (though he denies any criminal allegations), and that he has spent the last decade trying to better himself and the way he treats other people.
And this is where I think it is important to ask the question of what is to be done with Brand if he did indeed commit the allegations he’s accused? From a purely practical point, it makes perfect sense that he would not admit to anything criminal as it could immediately open him up to criminal and/or civil liability. It’s also not clear here what the alleged accusers actually want done to him. The stories released about Brand were explicitly initiated & solicited by reporters, not the alleged survivors themselves. And, there has been this movement on the center-Left (the very amalgam of people that is most influenced by the knowledge & power of the Believe Survivors narrative) toward what is often called restorative justice. This movement has been seen as a counter-movement to the overly punitive mass incarceration system in the United States, a country with five percent of the human population but twenty-five percent of the world’s prison population.
Except, this restorative justice movement never seems to apply to people accused of sex crimes. Also if you ever said anything vaguely racist or sexist in your entire life, you’re basically canceled and considered persona non grata for life, regardless of how much you apologize or how long ago the perceived social crime occurred. (If you want to hear an excellent critique of this type of cancellation, I highly recommend this video by anti-philosopher Contrapoints where she details the philosophy behind cancel culture and its many flaws). In many cases, no forgiveness against those accused of sex offenses is kind of warranted. Abusers like R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, & Brock Turner (that’s right Brock; we haven’t forgotten about you) have NEVER admitted they ever did anything wrong. Restorative justice is impossible unless the offending party has to actually admit to at least some wrong doing.
But, this isn’t exactly the case regarding Brand. Yes, he hasn’t admitted to any criminal wrong doing, but at the very least he’s admitted to very unethical behavior and appears (and I stress appears cause I don’t know what happens behind closed doors) to have spent the last decade trying to fundamentally change his behavior and the types of relationships he has. So, at what point does forgiveness come into play regarding these types of offenses? Is your forgiveness being clouded by your dislike of Brand’s heterodox views? Is it being denied because you’ve essentialized individual discrete instances of immoral behavior into Brand’s very existence, as if he is eternally this horrible person? What is it? Cause I seriously don’t know the answer for realz for realz.
And, then, there’s Youtube. I have to return specifically to the way Youtube has handled this situation. Youtube demonitized his entire channel, but strangely, did not delete the channel, meaning Google is still making bank off of Brand. Now, I already can hear what some people are going to say: free speech only applies to government censorship and Google is a private company. Well, companies like Google, Meta, Twitter, Tic Tok, etc have more wealth and power than most nations, and they literally don’t give two shits about any of us. Now, I’m not a free speech absolutist. I think there are legitimate reasons to censor or deplatform people, but this really isn’t one of them. Youtube, which has made what can scientifically be described as fat stacks of cash from Brand’s videos (he literally has over a billion views), released a statement saying that its terms of service includes behavior that may have occurred off of its platform, no matter how long ago the alleged behavior occurred. Which is kind of bonkers if you think about it. Why is Brand demonitized for his alleged past bad behavior, but the George W. Bush & Barack Obama Presidential Libraries aren’t despite those presidents literally raping and destroying entire countries?
This isn’t the first time I’ve criticized Youtube and other social media platforms. Yes, they’re private companies, and they are allowed to have standards of service about what content they allow on their platforms. But two problems arise here: 1) there is no clear standard on how these terms of service are applied and whether they are applied fairly. They are written in such vague legalese that nearly identical incidents by some content creators are never punished, while others have their channels completely deleted with no explanation and often no recourse. From personal experience, when Youtube ad restricts or completely demonitizes a video they never actually explain what in the video violated their ad policies, so it’s not clear what you would need to change in the video to satisfy their horrible censorship trolls. Chances are, you aren’t even dealing with a real person, but just a cold-soulless machine algorithm. I made a video earlier this year defending Youtuber Marcus Dib, who goes by the handle The Offensive Tranny (hey, that’s how he self-identifies, so don’t get mad at me)–who for seemingly no reason had his entire channel deleted. Now, I disagree with almost all of Dib’s beliefs, and only made the video to stand up for his free speech rights. Mr. Tranny was only able to get his page back because he has enough of a fan base, and people like me were willing to risk our own channels to stand up for him.
The second problem is that platforms like Youtube are increasingly becoming the space for public discourse no different from the town square. They are so large and integrated into our digital daily lives that an argument could be made that they’re almost a basic utility at this point, like electricity & water. No matter how horrible of a person you are, the electric and water company can’t just refuse you service unless you fail to pay. Just like no matter how horrible of a person you are, the government cannot infringe upon your right to free speech. There’s literally no law against being an asshole. Trust me, I know.
As I was finishing up this video, aforementioned philosopher Lewis Waller released his own video on Russell Brand. Waller’s video focused on the the spread of conspiracy theories, especially those spread by Russell Brand. Waller spends most of the video debunking a variety of conspiracy theories and basically calls Brand a delusional narcissist at one point. Waller uploaded the video to Youtube, waited a few days so Youtube’s horrible censorship trolls could scorer it looking for any content that might make advertisers clutch their pearls, and when no problems seemed to occur, he published the video. Within a day of it being posted, Youtube ad restricts Waller’s video about debunking conspiracy theories because it claims the video… spreads conspiracy theories. You can’t make this shit up. Waller tried all the ways you go about getting your video reviewed, even taking to Twitter. Youtube allegedly reviewed the video again, and maintained the ad restriction. They never actually tell him what in the video was so objectionable. Do go check out Then & Now’s video, and help him out too.
Citations:
Dimond, Diane. “Due Process in the #metoo Era.” Diane Dimond | Creators Syndicate, 6 Oct. 2018.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
This website uses cookies.