If you cared/tried to read it, you would see that there is no pressure to stop him discussing anything.
You clearly didn't read it yourself, or didn't understand what it said.
By putting pressure on removing Brand's ability to make money from his work, he will have less incentive to do that work.
Ergo...they are trying to stop him doing his work.
There is pressure to stop someone accused of serious sexual offenses from profiting from those serious sexual offenses.
How is his discussing government corruption related to accusations of sexual deviancy from two decades prior?
How is he profiting from
alleged sexual offences when his content has nothing to do with said
alleged offences?
You claim I didn't read anything, but you certainly didn't. As what I've just described is also Rumble's argument (linked in my post you quoted).
Remember Assange and his
alleged crimes coming off the back of his own
brand of anti-establishmentarianism?
Like Assange, people here are letting their personal dislike of a celebrity figure cloud their judgement...or rather, as soon as that figure made a perceived ideological shift from Left-to-Right he's suddenly fair game for the old
sexual-deviancy-accusations trick.
And everyone thinks it's perfectly normal how all the mainstream media synchronise in tandem to the story. Surely just a coincidence that Brand's very successful content of the last few years has been anti-authoritarian, during a pandemic in which authorities convinced most of the population to get jabbed with a very profitable product.
See also the timing of the Assange accusations (right after releasing a video of militaric mass murder).
There's no suppression of "free" speech if that's what you're worried about.
Ignorance is strength.
Same with YouTube’s demonetising, they haven’t stopped him posting, just stopped him earning from his posts.
That's the same thing.
I take away your payslip, will you still go to work regardless?
Funny how some people want to ignore the actual story to push their own angle.
Projection.
