Russell Brand To Give Speech About ‘Cancel Culture' Amid Allegations
Veteran comedian is set to deliver a speech at Florida's New College despite the ongoing allegations of sexual assault against him. The Forgetting Sarah Marshall star will give an interview to New College President Richard Corcoran while also talking about cancel culture, censorship, and free speech. However, his legal issues have sparked a discussion on the internet, causing many to question his upcoming appearance at the Florida institution.
Here's everything you need to know regarding the Brand's talking arrangement at the Florida college.
Content warning: The following contains discussions of sexual assault and rape charges.
On April 12, 2025, the Arthur actor will take the stage at the Mildred Sainer Pavilion in Florida's New College.
Russell Brand will be discussing cancel culture and other topics in an event titled 'Thinking without Permission: A Conversation with Russell Brand on Free Speech, Censorship, and Cultural Power.' Moreover, interested viewers can catch his speech on YouTube or X (formerly Twitter), as per People.
The event will take place eight days after the Metropolitan Police charged the three-time British Comedy Award winner with one count of rape, one count of indecent assault, one count of oral rape, and two counts of sexual assault. Allegations against Brand first arose in September 2023 after five women detailed their experiences to a collaborative investigation conducted by The Sunday Times, The Times, and Channel 4's Dispatches series.
Despite the allegations, New College authorities have decided to go through with Russell Brand's speech, which they confirmed back in February 2025. Explaining the decision, Alexandra Nicole Islas, the Director of Public Policy Events for the Florida institution, stated, 'In a time when public pressure often seeks to silence rather than engage, New College of Florida is reaffirming its role in creating space for open inquiry—not eliminating it.'
Acknowledging the allegations, Islas further clarified the college's choice to 'move forward with Brand's scheduled appearance as part of a broader conversation on society, culture, and free speech broader conversation on society, culture, and free speech,' adding 'that even challenging conversations deserve room in the public square.' She also emphasized the importance of having a space where individuals can explore ideas regarding society 'with respect, critical thought, and intellectual integrity.'
While Russell Brand has denied the allegations, he will make his scheduled court appearance on May 2, 2025.
The post Russell Brand To Give Speech About 'Cancel Culture' Amid Allegations appeared first on ComingSoon.net - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
YouTube overtakes streaming rivals as the go-to for TV and movies
Gone are the days when YouTube was just for catching up on vlogs or diving into late-night rabbit holes. Today, the platform is staking its claim in TV and film. Why you're catching the 'ick' so easily, according to science Why AI Is Making 1:1 Meetings Irrelevant Where are the wildfires in Canada? Maps pinpoint the location of fires and air-quality threats from smoke According to a new survey conducted by Looper Insights between April 16 and 25, 66% of consumers discover TV or film content via YouTube. For 61%, it's already part of their regular streaming habits, and for 34%, it's a main source for TV and film content, as reported by Media Play News. This shift isn't surprising. In April, the Google-owned platform captured a record 12.4% share of all TV viewing. And it's not just rival streamers who should be concerned. For three consecutive months, YouTube has ranked as the No. 1 distributor of television content, according to Nielsen. Media executives are taking notice. Among the 65 surveyed, 84% view YouTube as a viable platform for launching long-form content, and 30% are actively considering it for upcoming releases. In Q1 2025, more Americans watched YouTube on TV screens than on mobile devices—a first. Meeting audiences in the living room, media companies have begun uploading premium content directly to the platform. Earlier this year, Warner Bros. quietly released more than 30 full-length films on YouTube, free to watch. Yet as YouTube continues its rise, creators face critical decisions. Some, like Ms Rachel, have signed licensing deals with Netflix. MrBeast (aka Jimmy Donaldson), YouTube's most-subscribed creator, brought Beast Games to the small screen via Prime Video. Still, many fans would rather their favorite YouTubers stay where they started. More than half (54%) of respondents said YouTubers feel more authentic and better suited to the platform that launched their careers. Meanwhile, nearly three-quarters (74%) of executives noted that creator-led shows often underperform on platforms like Netflix and Prime, citing poor audience migration and an overreliance on follower counts. The good news: The YouTube takeover is already in full swing—so creators may not need to go anywhere at all. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter:
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sad Secrets of 400lb Man Who Crafts Trump's Insults: Author
White House communications director Steven Cheung has built a reputation for his profanity-laced, scorched-earth style—but author Michael Wolff, one of Cheung's favorite punching bags, thinks his combative persona is just theater. 'Steven is actually a really sweet guy,' said Wolff—whom Cheung once called a 'lying sack of s--t'—on this week's episode of The Daily Beast Podcast. 'There's a sort of tragic feel about (Cheung) because he's so heavy,' Wolff continued, arguing that he has to be 'hidden away' and can't become White House press secretary because the candidate 'has to be a young woman.' Wolff, who has penned a series of blistering books on President Trump, claimed that during Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, Cheung was 'always collapsing somewhere.' He cited a specific event at Union Station where he said he witnessed Cheung 'having to be carried out.' Cheung, a former spokesperson for the Ultimate Fighting Championship, fired back at Wolff in a statement to the Daily Beast. 'Michael Wolff clearly suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome and begged like a dog for an interview for his failed book,' he said. 'The only thing being carried out is his dignity after (he) continues to embarrass and beclown himself in a fleeting attempt to gain relevancy.' Wolff has grown accustomed to Cheung's attacks, which he believes are all part of a show for Trump, who famously rewards loyalty—and venom. 'Whatever Steven says or does is directed to an audience of one,' the author said. 'He issues these kinds of vituperative comments, which Trump likes. 'That's a good one,' Trump will say.' 'It's performative,' added host Joanna Coles, who was herself described as a 'blithering idiot' and a 'piece of s--t' by Cheung last month, after she questioned the president's eyebrow-raising weight loss claims. Wolff—also recently hit with the 'blithering idiot' tag—dismissed the insults as 'all boilerplate,' and claimed the White House even called him ahead of time to let him know Cheung would insult him as such. 'It's all being sort of in on the joke here,' Wolff said. New episodes of The Daily Beast Podcast are released every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Follow our new feed on your favorite podcast platform at and subscribe on YouTube to watch full episodes.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
There's Only One Question Here: Can Musk Bring Trump Down if He Wants?
For starters, I say Donald Trump is due our congratulations and respect. He finally found a white Afrikaner he'd like to throw out of the country. The early conventional wisdom on the Trump-Elon Musk divorce is that it was simultaneously shocking and inevitable. I suppose it was both of those things—Musk's fusillade of tweets Thursday was pretty shocking, especially the Jeffrey Epstein bomb; and it's true that this was bound to happen one day—no friendship between a ketamine-torqued egomaniac and a sociopathic liar with the emotional architecture of a 5-year-old is destined to go the distance. Taking a somewhat more historical perspective, this is the feud that Milton Friedman's America deserves. We've now lived through decades in which vast fortunes were amassed and lionized—and, importantly, at least in Trump's case, inherited and far too lightly taxed. Fred Trump gave Donald a reported $400 million when he died in 1999. Errol Musk was an emerald-mine magnate who once bragged that he had 'so much money we couldn't even close our safe,' though the extent to which he supported his son is a matter of heated debate (between them, mostly). Whatever the truth is there, the bottom line is that here we are, stuck with a crooked and stupid billionaire president and a crazed narcissist who could buy several countries fighting over which one has the purer, more Friedmansque-reactionary vision for what the United States should become. That's a crucial matter to which we'll return, but before we do that, let's indulge in the fun stuff and just cut to the chase: Does Musk have the goods to bring Trump down if he wants to? You should listen to my colleague Greg Sargent's interview with Rick Wilson on his podcast today (transcript here, if you prefer). Wilson is entertaining, as usual, but what's interesting is how his view of this goes against the conventional-wisdom grain. The emerging consensus is that Trump holds more cards here than Musk. He's the president, after all, and more than that, he is, as we know all too well, a president who's willing and eager to use the machinery of the state to settle personal scores. By this argument, Musk is in for weeks or months of hell if he doesn't take steps to tone this down. But to Wilson, 'Elon has more weapons here than Trump does.' Prominent among those, obviously, is Twitter. We all know what Musk has done with Twitter since buying it: He's reset the algorithms to elevate all manner of right-wing sewage—and to promote Donald Trump. What if Musk decides to reverse that? Most of the pro-Trump chatter on Twitter and other social media isn't coming from actual human beings. Most of it is coming from pro-Trump 'bot farms' that take over accounts or create fake ones for some specific purpose. Some estimates are that 73 percent of all internet traffic is bot-farm-initiated. (And isn't it lovely that up to three-quarters of what appears to be public opinion is totally faked by cynical and malicious people, if indeed it's even people behind it anymore?) Musk, Wilson told Sargent, could turn off the Trump bots in about three clicks. Doing that 'would change the political climate in this country almost instantaneously,' Wilson said. 'He could turn Twitter into a machine right now that will bash the tax bill.' Does that assign Twitter too much power? Could be. But if Twitter turns on Trump and the bill, the political world will notice. The dug-in MAGAs won't listen. But some of the non-MAGA people currently still saying they approve of Trump's job performance just might. Trump is still, astonishingly to me, polling in the mid-40s. If he drops down to 40, we're in a different political situation. Then there's the campaign. When Musk charges that Trump never would have won without his $290 million … well, that could be just a Johnson-measuring contest, in which case, who cares. But it's possible Musk knows something about how some of that money was spent. I mean, if I gave somebody $290 million for an important purpose, I'd want to know how it was spent. Maybe it was just spent on those anti-trans ads. But let's put it this way: We know Trump cheated in 2016. We know he's cheated all his life at everything. So he got a massive $290 million infusion in 2020 and thought, 'Let's be sure to spend every penny toward legitimate ends!' Seems unlikely. Finally, there's the nuclear bomb. Let's refresh our memories on the specific allegation against Trump with regard to Jeffrey Epstein. The week before the 2016 election, a woman who alleged that Trump raped her when she was 13 was about to hold a press conference and go public. She charged that Trump assaulted her four different times at parties thrown by Epstein. The media didn't take her allegations seriously at first because the woman allied herself with 'an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities,' as The Guardian put it. Then she hired lawyer Lisa Bloom—who had successfully sued the Boy Scouts, among others—and who is the daughter of Gloria Allred, who represented female accusers of Trump and Bill Cosby. The case was taken more seriously. The woman was ready to go public five days before the election, but she backed down after receiving many death threats. Trump, of course, denied the allegations. Does Musk know of actual evidence? He's not the world's most stable person either, so it's entirely possible that he's blowing smoke. Epstein once told Michael Wolff, 'I was Donald's closest friend for 10 years.' And Trump told New York magazine in 2002 that 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' We presume innocence in the United States, especially on so touchy a matter as this. But presuming innocence doesn't prevent us from wondering whether Musk is just trying to cause Trump maximum pain—or if he actually knows something. There were signs Friday morning that the feud was being turned down a notch or two. The White House was desperate for a meeting with Musk to cool the temperature—interesting in itself that it wasn't the other way around. So maybe Musk won't follow through on Thursday's threats. And who knows, with people this unstable, they could easily be BFFs again in six months. But any eulogy for this relationship must first and foremost be a eulogy for the United States of America. An amoral billionaire who by rights should have been impeached and barred from running for office for life became president again—legitimately this time, as far as we know—put the world's richest multibillionaire in charge of a sensitive task that he oversaw with the delicacy of a hyena stripping a wildebeest carcass clean. Their efforts have already resulted in deaths around the globe and will cause untold harm in this country over time. And now they're engaged in a 'substantive' argument that can be summarized like this. One, Trump wants a bill that is the usual Republican recipe for fiscal disaster—massive tax cuts for the rich, cuts to programs that helping working and poor people, huge deficits and debts as far as the eye can see. The other, Musk, at least professes to care about the deficits and debt, but he's totally chill with the massive tax cuts for the rich. He's just against the 'pork,' which is rich-man speak for things that might actually benefit people and communities. It's tragic that working Americans are held hostage to this madness. The small silver lining is the hope that Musk can make Trump's life as miserable as Trump can make his.
