In a recent video, I addressed the controversy surrounding Russell Brand and the subsequent actions taken by YouTube to demonetise his channel. It’s crucial to clarify that my stance is neutral—I am neither supporting nor opposing Brand or YouTube. My objective is to explain the legal rationale behind such decisions.
As a lawyer, I often deliver news that clients may find unpalatable. Many misunderstand this as taking sides, but it’s essential to present the facts as they stand. In this case, allegations against Brand have been published, but no charges have been filed. The Metropolitan Police have briefly commented on reports from 2003, yet no current or pending charges exist.
News organisations don’t publish allegations without thorough investigation. They must have credible information before making such serious claims, although this doesn’t confirm the allegations’ validity. YouTube’s decision to demonetise Brand’s channel likely stems from a similar basis of credible information. It’s improbable that such a drastic step would be taken without substantial consideration.
Employment contracts often include morality clauses, which can lead to job loss if serious allegations arise. For instance, a pilot convicted of a serious offence could lose their job and possibly their license. This principle applies to various professions, including those in schools and hospitals. If credible allegations surface and no action is taken, the institution could face severe backlash if further incidents occur.
Legal departments within news organisations meticulously evaluate the risk of publishing allegations. They consult extensively to ensure they have sufficient backup to defend against potential defamation claims. The reputational harm to Brand is significant, and if the allegations are false, he could pursue defamation actions. This potential legal exposure necessitates thorough vetting before publication.
The perception of “trial by media” is a valid concern. False allegations do happen, but so do delayed reports of genuine misconduct. Victims often refrain from going to the police due to low conviction rates and the gruelling process of court proceedings. This reluctance can lead to allegations surfacing years later, once victims feel ready to come forward.
The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is fundamental, but it doesn’t negate the necessity of acting on credible allegations. News companies and platforms like YouTube must balance the risk of inaction against the potential harm of premature decisions. Historical cases show that failing to act on early allegations can lead to severe criticism and consequences.
In conclusion, we don’t know the truth behind the allegations against Brand. What we do know is that they have been published after some level of investigation. Until these allegations are either substantiated or dismissed through legal processes, the situation remains unresolved. The actions taken by YouTube and news organisations are based on their assessments of the information available, not on a whim. This approach aims to navigate the complex landscape of public allegations and legal responsibilities.