SOMEWHERE IN THE UK (probably) – As you might have heard, alleged actor and purported comedian Russell Brand has made himself some unlikely bedfellows, by way of a new video he made in bed.

No, thankfully, Brand’s video is not a sex tape — although it is about porn.

Entitled “50 Shades — Has Porn Ruined My Chance Of A Happy Marriage?” Brand’s video has been embraced by groups like Fight the New Drug (an anti-porn organization, not a Huey Lewis comeback vehicle), Enough is Enough and Girls Against Porn.

“Russell Brand stars as anti-porn crusader,” USA Today declared about Brand’s YouTube soliloquy, adding “These are words we never expected to see after Russell Brand’s name: coherent, cogent, even persuasive crusader against pornography.”

While Brand’s video is certainly critical of porn, relying on some well-weathered assertions concerning porn’s various detrimental effects, it’s hard to see Brand’s rather milquetoast conclusion as something that would issue from the mouth of an “anti-porn crusader.”

“So I suppose what we can do is go see 50 Shades of Grey, or look at pornography — do what you’ve gotta do,” Brand says at the end of the video. “But try to have an idea of what you want from a loving relationship and what you want from sexuality.”

This is a far cry from the rhetoric of Gail Dines, Donna-Rice Hughes or Phil Burress.

Sure, Brand decries the “icebergs of filth floating through every house on wi-fi” and clearly believes his own once-prolific consumption of porn damaged his relationships with women — relationships during which Brand has not always been entirely sensitive to the feelings of his significant others.

Brand also faintly echoes Dines’ anti-capitalist views, referring to pornography, 50 Shades of Grey and all the ancillary goodies associated with the 50 Shades franchise as “capitalist products for capitalist times,” but it’s an offhand comment, one which seems aimed more at Madison Avenue than Porn Valley. Plus, it’s a little hard to take seriously anti-capitalist rhetoric from a person whose entertainment industry gigs likely wouldn’t pay a single thin dime if it weren’t for the promotional efforts of the capitalists who paid to create and distribute his work.

“I know that pornography is wrong,” Brand says at one point. “There’s a general feeling, isn’t there, in your core if you look at pornography that this isn’t what’s the best thing for me to be doing, this isn’t the best use of my time now.”

As he cycles through a series of unchallenged assumptions from various cherry-picked studies and critical writings about pornography, Brand sounds a lot like certain voices from the past, landing somewhere in between Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center and activist/disbarred attorney Jack Thompson.

As much as I disagreed with the PMRC during their effort to impose labeling requirements on products of the recording industry, I never opposed those efforts with the same intensity I feel toward organizations like Morality in Media or Citizens for Community Values.

Where MiM and CCV actively campaign for a severe crackdown on pornography in disingenuous fashion, consistently and intentionally asserting the word “pornography” is legally synonymous with “obscenity,” the PMRC merely sought to affix warning labels to products, ostensibly to let parents know the contents might not be appropriate for kids.

Even Thompson usually stopped short of openly stumping for direct censorship, although as Luther Campbell and the rest of 2 Live Crew would attest, he sure tried more than once to use the law as a bludgeon against expression of which he didn’t approve.

Brand’s video, anti-porn though it may be, isn’t really asking for any particular action against porn or the porn industry. He doesn’t call for new laws, or even more stringent enforcement of existing laws. His simplistic argumentation and debatable comedic talent aside, all Brand’s video ultimately does is ask people to think about porn, and to think about the effects it might have on them.

No doubt Brand has strong opinions of his own on the subject, as self-identifying “addicts” often do about the substances they have abused or the compulsive behaviors in which they have engaged.

I suspect we’ve all known recovering alcoholics who rail against the evils of alcohol – but I’d also wager most among us who enjoy the occasional booze buzz disagree somewhat about where the responsibility for the former alcoholic’s problems lie.

Does porn consumption have the potential to interfere in people’s lives? Like anything else humans can consume or do to excess, watching too much porn can be a bad thing, just as drinking too much alcohol can be a bad thing or spending too much time obsessing about one’s own health can be bad thing.

Where I part with Brand is on the question of causality, and by extension, the free pass we often give people when we decide the substances they consume or the media they watch or the songs they listen to have “caused” them to behave like unmitigated assholes.

To wit, if it’s true Brand told Katy Perry of his intent to divorce her via a text message, you can’t blame his abject assholism on porn, any more than you can blame it on his smart phone.

On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t be so dismissive of the possibility inanimate objects are behind some of Brand’s less-than-stellar moments.

“Do have a lovely weekend,” Brand says at close of his video. “I’m going to just shut this laptop now, before it causes me any more problems.”

Is Brand trying to tell us his laptop talked him into doing that horrid Arthur remake?

If that’s the case, shutting it won’t suffice. He needs to pitch the thing straight into the Thames.

Photo by Eva Rinaldi (Creative Commons license)