
X previously Twitter owner Elon Musk recently commented on Russell Brand’s court case, expressing that Brand is currently facing a “witch-burning phase” in the midst of charges of sexual assault by numerous women.
In a recent interview, thi’s what musk said,
“There needs to be, obviously, a conviction here. It can’t be guilty until proven innocent,” he added, “Because obviously we’re just sort of in the witch burning phase here; just being declared a witch is enough to make you a witch and be burnt.”
Musk further added that, the public’s response to Brand’s case is by all accounts described by rushed decisions, comparing it to a witch chase where just allegations can prompt judgment.
The claims against Russell Brand uncovered in a UK Times exposé, accuse the ‘Get Him to the Greek’ actor of sexually assaulting four women between 2006 and 2013. Brand eagerly denied these claims even before the report’s delivery.
The unknown accusers, include one lady who guaranteed she was sexually attacked when she was 16, during a relationship with Brand, and another who also accused Brand, 48, of assault in Los Angeles in 2012. The 16-year-old definite being in a genuinely oppressive relationship with Brand, claiming that he forcibly exposed her to a sexual act.
Russell Brand’s has faced has faced several issues recently in his life. His YouTube channel, where he had 6.6 million subscribers, was demonetized because of policy violations. Therefore, he lost the capacity to make money from advertisements on his channel.
Russell Brand’s YouTube Channel Has Been Demonitized. Here’s What Happened
Quickly replacing it, Brand turned to Rumble, an alternative video platform known for its commitment to free speech and resistance against censorship. He asked his followers to subscribe to his Rumble channel for an annual fee of $60.
This move came after he received a letter from Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of a parliamentary committee, inquiring about Rumble’s stance on his advertising revenues.
Rumble’s CEO, Chris Pavlovski, reaffirmed the platform’s commitment to free speech and refused to cut off Brand’s advertising revenues, emphasizing that such action would contradict their values.
Brand’s situation has sparked a broader discussion about free speech and censorship. He raised concerns about the suppression of independent media voices and alleged government involvement in YouTube’s actions against him.