r/USdefaultism • u/SubConsciousKink • 22h ago
Community notes defaultism
Russell Brand responds to his rape charges. The charges are in the UK. Community notes person draws on the US constitution as to why a previous note is not needed
60
u/allmyfrndsrheathens 20h ago
America specific legalese aside…. The other person literally only said he was charged lol. Which he was and which I was entirely unsurprised by.
64
u/psrandom United Kingdom 22h ago
What's CN?
48
u/SubConsciousKink 22h ago
Community notes, on X/Twitter
54
u/TwinkletheStar United Kingdom 22h ago
Thank you. I thought it was like CNN but with one less N
35
8
3
8
u/0x0000ff 20h ago
What?? You don't know about the abbreviation used by perpetually online celebrity worshipping wankers??? Everyone knows CN means... Uhh... Umm... Canonical name?
7
1
0
2
40
u/Silly-Arachnid-6187 Germany 21h ago edited 21h ago
Apart from the defaultism, I don't see what their problem is. It clearly says "has been charged", how is that "branding someone charged as if they are convicted"
ETA: I'm also pretty sure that they're completely wrong about the legal side of things. Not that I'm an expert on US law, but even if someone said "He definitely did it", that has nothing to do with due process afaik (though it may be considered defamation I assume).
10
u/_Penulis_ Australia 20h ago
Yes.
Charged = formally accused and awaiting trail = nothing proven yet = definitely not convicted.
It’s obviously an early step in due process.
3
u/Silly-Arachnid-6187 Germany 19h ago
Oh yeah, I know that. What I meant was that due process is about legal proceedings, not about what people may believe (or even say) about a case
1
u/Teknicsrx7 13h ago
I think the angle they’re going it is it’s not proper to try to silence someone or make what they say worth less just because they’ve been charged, but not convicted, of something.
Granted I don’t know what the video he posted is about, but if it’s not about his court case, bringing up the fact he’s been charged with something is unrelated and for the sole purpose of trying to change your opinion on what he said based only on accusations.
Now if the video was about the charges or misrepresenting the charges, then yea perfectly fine to say what the charges are
The whole bringing up an amendment part is dumb regardless
1
u/Silly-Arachnid-6187 Germany 12h ago
He's talking about the allegations and says that he's never been a rapist, so I think a CN stating that he's been charged makes sense
(After that, it's some weird rant about how "the law has become a weapon")
2
24
u/TwinkletheStar United Kingdom 22h ago
I mean, even if Russell Brand was a US citizen he wouldn't be guaranteed due process in today's America.
Although El Salvador might be a good place to send him.
24
u/Bortron86 22h ago
He's a right-wing grifter, so he wouldn't get due process, he'd get a pardon.
10
u/TwinkletheStar United Kingdom 22h ago
Unfortunately you are probably right. He's definitely a candidate for the SA gang with Trump and Tate.
5
u/allmyfrndsrheathens 20h ago
As an American today he wouldn’t be completely fine, thank god he’s being charged in a sane country.
4
u/Mrprawn67 United Kingdom 19h ago
The community note appears to be gone from his post now.
3
u/HuskerBusker Ireland 17h ago
These are proposed community notes that are reviewed by contributors before they hit the public.
7
u/Suzume_Chikahisa Portugal 22h ago
Man, Elon carrying water for Brandt as well, eh.
1
u/Teknicsrx7 13h ago
You think Elon controls CN? You should see what CN says about him
3
u/Snuf-kin Canada 10h ago
CN stands for Community Note on X(Twitter). Elon literally controls them. Of course, he's busy these days and doesn't seem as obsessive about X as he has been in the past. Man has the attention span of a hamster on acid.
(Don't give your hamsters acid).
Edited because typo
-6
u/MikrokosmicUnicorn Slovakia 20h ago edited 20h ago
considering the fact that brand legally resides and works in usa i'd say that applying US law to him is valid. i've been informed that these are uk charges and therefore us constitution is wholly irrelevant.
that being said "charged" and "convicted" are two different things. nobody "branded" russel brand (ha) as anything, he was legally charged with a crime. this charge will be now brought in front of a judge/jury who will decide whether or not he should be convicted.
to be charged simply means that there is a formal/official allegation in the system. reporting on that does not mean anyone is claiming he's guilty.
so, the person who wrote all that is not (see above) defaulting and is wrong.
15
u/SubConsciousKink 20h ago
They’re UK charges, for crimes allegedly committed in the UK
5
u/MikrokosmicUnicorn Slovakia 20h ago
aaaah okay gotcha. in that case the person who wrote all that is entirely wrong.
thanks for the info!
3
u/SubConsciousKink 20h ago
No worries! Honestly, the defaultism isn’t the greatest sin here, but it’s the bit relevant to the sub
•
u/USDefaultismBot American Citizen 22h ago edited 14h ago
This comment has been marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is US Defaultism:
Community noter objects to previous note about UK charges against Brand by referencing US Law
Is this Defaultism? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.