Rumble rejects UK lawmakers' call to stop Russell Brand monetisation

So bizarre the UK government would directly push for demonetisation before any legal trial.

There should be an insurance product for this

I suspect (as an ignorant) that the letter is leaning on:

1) the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (It's as close to 'Son of Sam law' that the UK has, I believe.)

2) Some combination of Malicious Communications Act 1988 / Communications Act 2003 / Protection from Harassment Act 1997 / maybe even Public Order Act or Data Protection Act.

Relevant wording of note in the letter (not quoted fully in this article) is "monetise his content...including his videos relating to the... allegations" "Use the platform to undermine the welfare of... potentially illegal behaviour"

So the above can be used to argue that this isn't just 'guilty until proven innocent'. Just my diplomatic input.

Whatever 'justice' is in this case, I want it. But I do worry that this is overreach, and too broad. (I don't know enough about this case to have stronger feelings, and I refuse to have the knee-jerk reaction - either way - that the vast majority of people seem to be having).

Letter: https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118/p...

While I don't doubt the truth of this story, I wonder, how easy would it be for a platform to make up an interaction like this? Let's say I was making a free speech platform, and it was relatively unknown. If I claim I got a letter from the government asking me to do something anti-free speech, I could make a big deal about how I'm going to ignore that. Even if I made up that letter, would the government ever publicly state that the letter is false and they never sent it?

The government didn’t, a member of parliament sent a letter.

Both are virtue signalling loudly