4 ms·

We are talking about a joke made in a comedy programme. Making a joke in a comedy programme, even in conversation with someone later revealed to have been a sex

by akolbe 3y ago

We are talking about a joke made in a comedy programme. Making a joke in a comedy programme, even in conversation with someone later revealed to have been a sex offender, is not a crime. In fact, making outrageous jokes and being Russell Brand is what the BBC and Channel 4 paid him for at the time. As for any actual sexual misconduct, that is a matter for the courts to decide; but in my mind there is no question that the BBC and Channel 4 enabled, encouraged and rewarded Brand's behaviour.

saberience 3y ago
I think there is a line between somewhat risque humor and calling a grandfather to tell him you "fucked" his grand-daughter. I've seen plenty of edgy comedy but nothing like that. Or calling someone like Jimmy Saville and insinuating you will send your young, pretty assistant to be molested by him. And yes, before it was 100% known about Jimmy, everyone knew (at least where I was from) that he dodgy as hell. You're acting like Russell just made a few juvenile fart and shit jokes... he didn't. Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter? We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick. You don't need a courtroom trial to receive results from actions. If you go around calling everyone a dick-head every day, sooner or later someone will punch you in the face. Russell Brand has a legal right to freedom, so any attempt to take that away can only be done with a fair trial by jury. Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life.
- akolbe 3y ago
  Sigh. Please get your facts right. It was Jonathan Ross who said Russell Brand fucked Sachs' granddaughter (which I personally thought was well beyond the pale, as tasteless jokes go). https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-jonathan-ross-andrew-sachs-calls https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-... [Speaking on Andrew Sachs' answerphone] Russell Brand: Hello Andrew Sachs, this is Russell Brand … you are meant to be on my show now mate … I am here with Jonathan Ross. I could still do the interview to your answerphone. Jonathan Ross: Let's do it … Brand: Man … er, Andrew Sachs. Ross: Don't call him Manuel, that's really bad manners. I apologise for Russell - he's an idiot. Brand: I said Andrew Sachs! Look Andrew Sachs I have got respect for you and your lineage and your progeny, never let that be questioned. Ross: Don't hint … Brand: I weren't hinting! Why did that come across as a hint? Ross: Because you know what you did… Brand: That wasn't a hint … Ross: He fucked your granddaughter! [laughter in the studio] Brand: That's his answerphone! Ross: I'm sorry … I apologise Andrew, I apologise, I can't help it, you were talking about it and it was in my head, I apologise. Brand: Jonathan! Ross: I got excited, what can I say, it just came out.
  - saberience 3y ago
    Conveniently you missed this part (I guess it was not an accident): Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs … So not only did he call up an old man saying he had sex with his grand-daughter, he made a gag about her not being on her period and it being consensual. Why are you trying to defend this incredibly gross and nasty person?
    - akolbe 3y ago
      This was a prerecorded programme and the BBC chose to air it. "Gross and nasty" or not, this was viewed as mainstream entertainment by the BBC's bosses fifteen years ago. Marina Hyde has a good piece in today's Guardian about this particular programme and how things have changed: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-... I remember this episode, and I remember other stuff Brand did in the early noughties. Personally, I always thought Brand was a git. But if people claim Brand did or said stuff he didn't do or say, I think it ought to be pointed out. And if you can't see the implications of someone being deplatformed in this way ostensibly because of something they allegedly did fifteen or twenty years ago then I cannot help you. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken Google is not strictly speaking a lawmaker, but they have comparable impact.
- akolbe 3y ago
  Moreover, Russell Brand has not been kicked off of YouTube. His channel is still there, as ever: https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand They are just withholding revenue. I am not defending sexual abuse. My point is well articulated here by The Hill's Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_Kjd0xXNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_Kjd0xXNA From the transcript (starts about 1:00 min into the video): I find this extremely disturbing and you know with the caveat that of course YouTube is a private company they are not bound to give you free speech rights or do process rights they're not bound by the First Amendment they can literally do whatever they want we don't have to like it we can criticize it and I think this is well worth criticizing this is not him being punished even for some speech some content he's produced on the platform which is some a problem we've had you know with YouTube in the past this the show has had problems with that in the past this is him being punished for and I'm not trying to detract from from the things people are saying about him but at this point these are Anonymous accusations that have not been substantiated through any kind of formal legal process the idea that you would be you would be canceled on us in a significant financial Revenue sort of way I know his main thing is Rumble but he also posts on YouTube for anonymous accusations against you reflecting behavior from decades ago uh I think that's pretty wild [...]
  - saberience 3y ago
    My point is the same whether he gets kicked off of Youtube or just has his advertisement rights removed. There is no god-given right granted us to be able to broadcast OR make money from Youtube. If I own a bar or restaurant or club, I can prevent you from performing standup if I want and there doesn't even have to be a reason. It doesn't have to go to court and there doesn't even need to be evidence. Right now what we are seeing are Russell Brand's metaphorical chickens coming home to roost.
    - glandium 3y ago
      For what it's worth, preventing a business from making business is a crime in Japan. https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%96%B6%E6%A5%AD%E5%A6%A8%E5%AE%B3 https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%96%B6%E6%A5%AD%E5%A6%A8%... In your bar or restaurant example, I think even in the US, that could be a breach of contract.
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago
  > I think there is a line between somewhat risque humor and calling a grandfather to tell him you "fucked" his grand-daughter. I've seen plenty of edgy comedy but nothing like that. > Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter? Regardless of how distasteful you find it (it is), an entertainer pushing a poor taste line for comedic purposes is not really a fair comparison here. I'm unsure if this is intentional or not, but I'm trying to be charitable. > We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick. Sort of. The "being a dick" part is highly interwoven with the 'serious sexual crimes' accusations by the original reporting, and this makes the whole thing tricky and murky. > Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life. Agreed, however organisations knee-jerk banning people for (what are so far) unproven accusations is generally seen as "being a dick" too - the difference being we can definitively see this. On a site like HN, this is amplified due to the higher interests in social media powers, fair platforms, etc.

by akolbe 3y ago

saberience 3y ago

I think there is a line between somewhat risque humor and calling a grandfather to tell him you "fucked" his grand-daughter. I've seen plenty of edgy comedy but nothing like that. Or calling someone like Jimmy Saville and insinuating you will send your young, pretty assistant to be molested by him. And yes, before it was 100% known about Jimmy, everyone knew (at least where I was from) that he dodgy as hell. You're acting like Russell just made a few juvenile fart and shit jokes... he didn't. Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter? We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick. You don't need a courtroom trial to receive results from actions. If you go around calling everyone a dick-head every day, sooner or later someone will punch you in the face. Russell Brand has a legal right to freedom, so any attempt to take that away can only be done with a fair trial by jury. Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life.

akolbe 3y ago
Sigh. Please get your facts right. It was Jonathan Ross who said Russell Brand fucked Sachs' granddaughter (which I personally thought was well beyond the pale, as tasteless jokes go). https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-jonathan-ross-andrew-sachs-calls https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-... [Speaking on Andrew Sachs' answerphone] Russell Brand: Hello Andrew Sachs, this is Russell Brand … you are meant to be on my show now mate … I am here with Jonathan Ross. I could still do the interview to your answerphone. Jonathan Ross: Let's do it … Brand: Man … er, Andrew Sachs. Ross: Don't call him Manuel, that's really bad manners. I apologise for Russell - he's an idiot. Brand: I said Andrew Sachs! Look Andrew Sachs I have got respect for you and your lineage and your progeny, never let that be questioned. Ross: Don't hint … Brand: I weren't hinting! Why did that come across as a hint? Ross: Because you know what you did… Brand: That wasn't a hint … Ross: He fucked your granddaughter! [laughter in the studio] Brand: That's his answerphone! Ross: I'm sorry … I apologise Andrew, I apologise, I can't help it, you were talking about it and it was in my head, I apologise. Brand: Jonathan! Ross: I got excited, what can I say, it just came out.
- saberience 3y ago
  Conveniently you missed this part (I guess it was not an accident): Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs … So not only did he call up an old man saying he had sex with his grand-daughter, he made a gag about her not being on her period and it being consensual. Why are you trying to defend this incredibly gross and nasty person?
  - akolbe 3y ago
    This was a prerecorded programme and the BBC chose to air it. "Gross and nasty" or not, this was viewed as mainstream entertainment by the BBC's bosses fifteen years ago. Marina Hyde has a good piece in today's Guardian about this particular programme and how things have changed: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-... I remember this episode, and I remember other stuff Brand did in the early noughties. Personally, I always thought Brand was a git. But if people claim Brand did or said stuff he didn't do or say, I think it ought to be pointed out. And if you can't see the implications of someone being deplatformed in this way ostensibly because of something they allegedly did fifteen or twenty years ago then I cannot help you. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken Google is not strictly speaking a lawmaker, but they have comparable impact.
akolbe 3y ago
Moreover, Russell Brand has not been kicked off of YouTube. His channel is still there, as ever: https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand They are just withholding revenue. I am not defending sexual abuse. My point is well articulated here by The Hill's Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_Kjd0xXNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_Kjd0xXNA From the transcript (starts about 1:00 min into the video): I find this extremely disturbing and you know with the caveat that of course YouTube is a private company they are not bound to give you free speech rights or do process rights they're not bound by the First Amendment they can literally do whatever they want we don't have to like it we can criticize it and I think this is well worth criticizing this is not him being punished even for some speech some content he's produced on the platform which is some a problem we've had you know with YouTube in the past this the show has had problems with that in the past this is him being punished for and I'm not trying to detract from from the things people are saying about him but at this point these are Anonymous accusations that have not been substantiated through any kind of formal legal process the idea that you would be you would be canceled on us in a significant financial Revenue sort of way I know his main thing is Rumble but he also posts on YouTube for anonymous accusations against you reflecting behavior from decades ago uh I think that's pretty wild [...]
- saberience 3y ago
  My point is the same whether he gets kicked off of Youtube or just has his advertisement rights removed. There is no god-given right granted us to be able to broadcast OR make money from Youtube. If I own a bar or restaurant or club, I can prevent you from performing standup if I want and there doesn't even have to be a reason. It doesn't have to go to court and there doesn't even need to be evidence. Right now what we are seeing are Russell Brand's metaphorical chickens coming home to roost.
  - glandium 3y ago
    For what it's worth, preventing a business from making business is a crime in Japan. https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%96%B6%E6%A5%AD%E5%A6%A8%E5%AE%B3 https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%96%B6%E6%A5%AD%E5%A6%A8%... In your bar or restaurant example, I think even in the US, that could be a breach of contract.
TheHappyOddish 3y ago
> I think there is a line between somewhat risque humor and calling a grandfather to tell him you "fucked" his grand-daughter. I've seen plenty of edgy comedy but nothing like that. > Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter? Regardless of how distasteful you find it (it is), an entertainer pushing a poor taste line for comedic purposes is not really a fair comparison here. I'm unsure if this is intentional or not, but I'm trying to be charitable. > We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick. Sort of. The "being a dick" part is highly interwoven with the 'serious sexual crimes' accusations by the original reporting, and this makes the whole thing tricky and murky. > Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life. Agreed, however organisations knee-jerk banning people for (what are so far) unproven accusations is generally seen as "being a dick" too - the difference being we can definitively see this. On a site like HN, this is amplified due to the higher interests in social media powers, fair platforms, etc.