Rumble releases explosive letter defending Russell Brand against ‘cancel culture mob’ after Youtube income loss
‘We don’t agree with the behaviour of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalise them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Video streaming site Rumble has criticised the chair of a parliamentary committee for writing a letter asking it to suspend Russell Brand from receiving advertising revenue on its platform.
Brand has more than 1.4 million followers on Rumble and used the platform to post his pre-emptive denial video after being approached with allegations of rape, sexual harassment and abusive behaviour by news organisations.
In a statement posted on X, Rumble said its chief executive Chris Pavlovski had received an “extremely disturbing” letter from Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the culture, media, and sport committee.
The letter asked Mr Pavlovski to confirm “whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content [on Rumble]” and, if so, “whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform”.
“We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so,” the statement from Rumble said. “We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.
“While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with the content on Rumble’s platform,” read the statement.
“Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet – meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.”
Brand has been accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse by four women following an investigation by the Times, the Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches.
The comedian and media personality has denied all the “very serious allegations” aimed at him, which date to between 2006 and 2013.
Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days
New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled
Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days
New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled
The 48-year-old, originally from Essex, took to his YouTube channel as well as his Rumble page before the allegations were published and said any relationships “were absolutely always consensual” during the “promiscuous” stage of his life. He said that “amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute”.
“We are also looking at his [Brand’s] use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his preemptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches,” said the letter from Dame Caroline.
“While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
“We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.”
Rumble, in response, said the parliament’s demands were “even more disturbing” because it said the accusations against Brand have no relation to content on Rumble.
“We don’t agree with the behaviour of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalise them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform,” said the statement.