A Brief Guide to the “Free Britney” Movement

2019, while not the year it was created, has been the year that the #FreeBritney movement has finally gone mainstream (more or less).

The situation is complex and started developing long before #FreeBritney became a trending topic back in April, but the hashtag essentially refers to the fan-led movement to end the now eleven-year-long and ongoing conservatorship of Britney Spears.

To be completely accurate, we should consider the #FreeBritney movement as having existed as long as Britney's conservatorship has been in place (since February 2008), though it didn't gain such an onslaught of attention until recently, due largely to the release of the episode, “#FreeBritney,” by the podcast, Britney's Gram, which publicized accusations from an alleged insider on Britney Spears’ case claiming that Britney had been held in a mental health facility against her will for the first four months of 2019. 

I should clarify here that when #FreeBritney began its revitalization in April, there was a misconception that the forced mental health treatment was at the crux of the movement (some interpreted "free Britney" to mean "free Britney from the mental health facility"). In actuality, the alleged forced treatment was only one symptomatic problem of the real focus of #FreeBritney supporters: the conservatorship that many Britney fans have seen as unnecessary, unlawful, and unethical for a long time. 

At first glance, #FreeBritney probably does look like a conspiracy theory, and it maybe somewhat is. Even with the sort-of mainstream attention of the last five months, and the handful of celebrity supporters, if you were to actually look at the #FreeBritney hashtag on Twitter at any given time, 99% of what you'll see are tweets from die-hard Britney fans (part of "stan twitter").

Though Twitter is the primary home of the #FreeBritney movement, it is simultaneously both the best and worst source of information on it. On the better end, you absolutely will not understand the depth of this conversation unless you visit the spaces in which the conversation is taking place. While many "#FreeBritney Explained" articles have been published by trusted news sources in the last five months, none have fully explored even the most pervasive accusations made by #FreeBritney supporters, no matter how many claim to hold "everything you need to know." 

On the worse end, of course, is the fact that Twitter users do not need to fact check, and since many stan Twitter users are discernibly young–and therefore generally more impressionable–some, if not most, of the information on the #FreeBritney hashtag is less-than reliable, and often purely speculative. 

To give an example, if you only read the #FreeBritney explainer-pieces (say by Rolling Stone, Forbes, Vulture, etc.), you may get a basic idea of what #FreeBritney represents, but you probably wouldn't even read mention of a primary villain through the eyes of Britney stans: Lou Taylor. 

The exclusion of Lou Taylor, the business manager of both Britney Spears and her sister, Jamie Lynn, is not an oversight. The stan theory that Lou is secretly the puppet master behind all of Britney's conservatorship is not exactly proven and fans' vitriolic hatred for Lou (a.k.a. “Loucifer”) can sometimes look a little comical to onlookers, with fans blaming her for any unfavorable activity related to Britney's case (she's been accused of logging into Jamie Lynn Spears' Instagram account to block Britney, personally getting #FreeBritney accounts suspended, and literally stalking Britney before 2008).

It is probably with good intent that Lou Taylor, someone with no official ties to Britney's conservatorship, is left out of every primary news sources' explainer pieces, but it speaks to a larger problem of mainstream publications never exploring even the most widespread accusations of stan Twitter, especially as some of those accusations may be well-founded. It might not be proven that Taylor has anything to do with Britney's conservatorship, but she has been accused at least twice of trying to do similar things to other “troubled” celebrities–once by Michael Lohan, claiming that Taylor and Dina Lohan were attempting to place Lindsay Lohan into a conservatorship, and multiple times by Courtney Love who’s accused Taylor of trying to take over her estate via conservatorship.

But of course, there is one larger problem in tackling and explaining the #FreeBritney movement; aside from just the concerns of factual accuracy on stan Twitter, or lack thereof, we have to consider the issue of privacy.

I'm not going to pretend that #FreeBritney isn't all just a huge invasion of privacy. Digging into the details of someone's personal life, trying to make assessments about their mental health without even knowing them, and creating elaborate explanations over who is and who isn't a villain in their story is all invasive, and Britney should have the power to discuss the issues of her life on her own terms, without fan intrusion. However, there are very legitimate reasons to believe that Britney does not have this power due to the strict control of her conservators and team. Because of those reasons, fans feel it may be acceptable to intrude upon Britney's personal life in order to ensure her rights are not being violated.

The most motivating example of this is Britney's 2016 interview on The Jonathan Ross Show, during which Britney allegedly attempted to discuss her conservatorship and the level of control she's had over her music. According to multiple audience members who watched the event unfold live, Britney mentioned her conservatorship, claimed many decisions were being made for her, and said she had to be “strategic” in order to gain control of her career. Jonathan Ross was then allegedly forced to change subjects, not being permitted to discuss the conservatorship on air, or in front of an audience. Britney apparently looked disappointed to be moving on, and the entire section was cut out of the televised interview (the most examined "confession" of the aired interview wound up being Britney saying she liked rice).

This is a small event that is barely mentioned in current discussions of #FreeBritney, but I think it's imperative. If fans believed that Britney had the power to even mention her conservatorship publicly, there would be less suspicion surrounding it. If you trust the source on the Britney's Gram's #FreeBritney episode, the insider claims the incident on Jonathan Ross is not abnormal, writing via text to the hosts, 

“Management has final say on what goes in and what stays out. You should see the behavior whenever she's booked on something with a live audience. They're freaked the fuck out because whatever leaves her mouth can't just be edited out.”

For the record, there have been multiple instances of interviewers publicly expressing issues with Britney's management's level of control.

Fans do not trust the word of Britney's team since Britney's own voice has evidently been stifled. Even social media posts allegedly written by Britney are quickly assessed by fans to determine their true legitimacy. Case in point: Britney's message on Instagram from April 23rd, in which she addresses some of the rumors started by the #FreeBritney movement and ends her caption with the statements, "what I need right now is a little bit of privacy to deal with all the hard things that life is throwing my way. If you could do that, I would be forever grateful."

These are two sentences that likely would have ended the #FreeBritney movement as a whole if fans had the confidence that Britney was actually the one writing all her captions, or even had full authority over her social media (even the posts fans do think came directly from Britney are speculated to have gone through the filter of her team before being uploaded for public scrutiny). In the video attached to the caption, Britney can be seen assuring fans that "all is well" and that her family is "just going through a lot of stress and anxiety lately," but the plea for privacy is not present, pushing fans to conclude that if it was only written in a caption, it may not have been from Britney. 

Of course, plenty of this sounds conspiratorial, or at least convenient excuses to continue invading Britney's privacy; but there are a lot of reasons to distrust Britney's team and remain critical of her conservatorship.

For one thing, Britney's own mother, Lynne Spears, has demonstrated apparent support for #FreeBritney, often liking #FreeBritney comments on Instagram, including one that reads, "I really hope you are supporting Britney in trying to end this conservatorship. I really hope your ailing ex husband isn’t keeping your daughter somewhere against her will." 

And Lynne isn't the only person who's been witness to Britney's conservatorship that's either directly or indirectly supported #FreeBritney. Photographer, Lotfai, tweeted of his negative interactions with Britney's team while directing Britney a few years ago; video director, David LaChapelle, similarly recounted feeling uneasy with the treatment of Britney by her team while working with them for a 2016 music video; and Britney's former assistant and longtime friend, Felicia Culotta, liked the following Instagram post from a popular #FreeBritney supporting fansite (as did Lynne Spears and a childhood friend of Britney's):

Alongside this, some of the claims of the Britney's Gram podcast have gained more evidentiary support, with TMZ reporting that Britney herself, alongside Lynne Spears' lawyer, echoed the allegation in court that Jamie Spears did admit her into a mental health facility against her will and did force her to take medication. While the allegation that Jamie is an abusive father and conservator is still only speculation, accusations that Jamie has been abusive toward Britney's children have recently surfaced, along with reports that Britney's two sons now have three-year-long restraining orders against Jamie.

Since the #FreeBritney movement is about as old as the conservatorship itself, we should also consider the red flags that have existed from the beginning. For starters, while it's theoretically in the power of a conservatee to begin the process of ending their own conservatorship, Britney's attempts to start this process have been seemingly blocked. 

In 2008, Britney attempted to hire her own attorney, Adam Streisand, in an effort to remove her father as conservator. Streisand's testimony was invalidated upon court decision that Britney was too mentally ill to be capable of hiring her own representation. Less than two weeks later, Britney attempted to hire an attorney again, this time Jon Eardley who filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court on Britney's behalf, calling her conservatorship a “violation of civil rights.” A hearing was never called in response to this complaint. About a year later, a voicemail leaked allegedly from Britney to an attorneys office in which Britney can be heard discussing her continued plans for eliminating the conservatorship and seeking assurance that her custody arrangement would not be altered, saying: 

"I'm calling again because I just wanted to make sure, during the process of eliminating my conservatorship, that my father has threatened me several times that, you know, he'll take my children away. I just want to be guaranteed that everything will be fine with the process of you guys taking care of everything, and things just being the same as far as my custodial time." 

Britney's custodial time being threatened has long been theorized as a primary factor for why she hasn't more aggressively fought the conservatorship, with Streisand telling The New York Times in 2016, "Britney wanted to oppose the conservatorship, but she was also extremely worried about her kids and seemed to understand that the best thing to do to see her kids was to accept it." 

Accepted it or not, the fact remains that Britney has attempted to end her conservatorship, but has rarely had her own voice heard inside a courtroom. If she's been decided as too incapable to even speak on her own life and her own competence, she has been denied the basic right of protecting herself against injustice.

So, of course, we have to discuss the biggest area of concern: the money. 

A few weeks ago, you may have noticed some articles popping up about Britney's spending habits, specifically her making 80 trips to Target in 2018. These reports came as a result of news sources gaining access to financial documents filed every year as part of Britney's conservatorship.

While Britney making 80 trips to Target in a year is a sort of fun fact, the much less broadcast finding of her financial records shows that even all of her living expenses combined (an absurd number of Target trips included) don't add up to half the cost of her conservatorship, with Britney paying around $1.1 million in conservatorship and legal fees in 2018. Jamie Spears is documented as taking $128,000 of those fees, but that isn't all the money he receives–in addition, he is also reimbursed for rent he pays on an office and receives 1.5% of gross revenue tied to Britney's Las Vegas residencies, both from performances and merchandise, according to a 2016 article from The New York Times.

Andrew Wallet, Britney's former co-conservator, received a raise of $426,000 per year briefly before abruptly stepping down in early 2019, allegedly telling the judge to consider Britney's conservatorship a “hybrid business model.”

When #FreeBritney started blowing up earlier this year, a Forbes explainer piece on the movement explored some of the questions surrounding Britney's finances within the conservatorship, writing, 

“Britney reportedly earned $672 million during her career up until 2016, according to MoneyNation.com. Yet her annual conservatorship filings reported her net worth as of early 2018 to be $56 million, only slightly above her reported 2007 net worth, of $54 million. With gross earnings soaring during her Vegas run, especially considering her lucrative concerts, endorsements and merchandising, some have questioned whether Britney should be worth more by now.”

Britney's conservatorship doesn't only financially benefit her conservators, but her entire team. Since Britney has such little control over her life, she, of course, does not have the legal right to hire or fire anyone that works on any of her ventures. Britney Spears does not employ a single person; Jamie Spears does on her behalf. 

We should then consider who on Britney's team may actually have her best interest at heart. We've already discussed business manager, Lou Taylor, and fans obviously consider her allegiance to be with Jamie Spears. It should be noted as well that another of Britney's managers, Larry Rudolf, was fired by Britney in 2007, yet works as Britney's manager currently, rehired after the conservatorship under Jamie.

Even outside of whose jobs may be decidedly terminated should Britney regain the right to choose her own team, there is also the possibility of retirement. For all the hundreds to thousands of people that profit from Britney's career–not only people in her immediate team, but the dancers, costume designers, makeup artists, etc. that assist her in her shows, the casino that housed her Vegas residency, the people at Elizabeth Arden making her fragrances, and so on–the conservatorship may be the only thing they can rely upon to uphold the status quo, especially considering the fact that Britney Spears, herself, has not signed a contract of her own since 2007. 

Despite the claim that Britney is incapable of handling her own life and finances, everybody gains from keeping her working, getting us to the most prevalent argument against the conservatorship.

It'd be easy for even the most dedicated fans to not realize any drama was happening behind the scenes of Britney Spears’ life since, for the last eleven years, Britney's career has continued to stay more or less on track. She's performed four world tours and four years of a Vegas residency, she was briefly a judge on the X-Factor, and she released four studio albums, twenty fragrances, and a lingerie clothing line, to only name a few of her ventures. The time from the cancellation of her Domination residency earlier this year to right now may actually be the longest “break” Britney's career has taken since the start of her conservatorship.

All of this begs the question, how can it be continually argued that Britney is incapable of feeding and clothing herself when she's proven herself exceptionally competent at being a worldwide superstar (something I imagine is tremendously more difficult)?

I don't want to make any definite statements about Britney's own capacities. I do not know her, I have never met her, and I am not aware of the details of her life or mental state. What I will say is that the amount of work she's done over the last eleven years put in context with the claim that she is not capable of making key decisions over her own life is suspicious. How can her conservators uphold that she has a mental illness so severe it incapacitates her from being able to take care of herself, yet it hasn't incapacitated her from being able to make other people hundred of thousands of dollars or possibly even millions?

The fact that this is not something that's been widely questioned by the general public is incredibly disappointing, but I think the attitude of the public to overlook the suspicious elements of Britney's situations speaks to larger assumptions about Britney Spears: that she is “crazy” and needs to be controlled.

While many of us have made assumptions about what mental illness Britney Spears has, Britney herself has never made a public confession concerning a diagnosis. We simply do not know what mental illnesses Britney Spears has, if any, and it should be acknowledged that even a confirmed mental illness does not necessitate the strict control of a conservatorship.

Britney does not need to ever publicly discuss her mental health status. She can take her medical history to the grave, and I personally am not interested in such private information becoming public. What I am interested in is the fact that while Britney's medical history has never been revealed, many people have come to their own conclusions about what Britney must have and I don't think enough credit has been given to the external factors of her “breakdown.”

Whenever the conversation of Britney's mental health comes up, the most evidence for a possible mental illness comes from pretty much the entirety of 2007 when erratic behavior from Britney was reported on on an almost daily basis and most of America watched as she seemed to lose control of her life–she attacked a car with an umbrella, spoke in a bad British accent, shaved her head in the middle of the night, and so on.

I won't act like Britney's 2007 behavior wasn't alarming, dangerous, or indicative of a real psychological problem, but the way so many spectators jumped to diagnose Britney from afar, without any actual word from her, was also deeply troubling.

There are two major problems with the public diagnosis of Britney Spears. The first and most obvious is that you just can't diagnose someone from afar the way much of the public has decidedly diagnosed Britney. No matter how much of her behavior read to some as a "manic" episode (and I do understand and sympathize with bipolar individuals who related to Britney's behavior in terms of their own struggles), nobody but a licensed professional that has personally met with Britney with the intent of assessing her mental health can properly diagnose her. Any attempt to diagnose Britney as a stranger is both uneducated and unfair.

The second is the reason a lot of us jumped to diagnose Britney so quickly: to provide an easy explanation for her erratic behavior, even if it muted the discussion on other possibilities.

Women historically have had their thoughts, feelings, and pain dismissed by the explanation that if a woman is acting out of character, or just against the expectations of her gender, she must be crazy–i.e., the origin of the word “hysterical.”

But Britney Spears had reason to be upset in 2007. Possible factors of her breakdown include some very personal trauma–the dissolution of her marriage, the loss of custody of her children, the death of an aunt she was close with, the pregnancy of her teen sister (which she learned about through paparazzi)–and also the fact that we, the public, treated Britney like shit.

Since she was a teen, grown adults pried into Britney’s sex life. When she went out, photographers aimed cameras up her skirt. Paparazzi crowded her car to the point she could barely drive through the street, or get through a convenience store.

Explaining her rage, sadness, and odd behavior solely as a result of a chronic mental illness, instead of considering the situational aspects of her emotional stress, prevented us from considering how Britney had been wronged and how we had wronged her. 

Even the most iconic image of Britney's breakdown–of her shaving her head in full view of paparazzi–can have an explanation beyond just a chronic mental illness. The most Britney has ever spoken about her 2007 behavior was in the 2008 MTV documentary, For the Record (which I implore everyone interested in Britney’s life to watch), where she said of the head-shaving:

“I was going through so much artificial stuff with my kids and with Kevin and all that stuff at the time and he just left me and I was devastated, you know. And people thought that it was me, like, going crazy and stuff like that but people shave their heads all the time, you know. I was going through a lot, but it was just kind of like me feeling a form of a little bit of rebellion or feeling freer. You know, shedding stuff that had happened.”

I don't ever want to imply that I think Britney does not have a mental illness, or even a severe one at that. Plenty of people do and it very well could have played a factor in her public “breakdown.”

What I am implying is that the other factors of her behavior were never fully investigated because it was easier to write them all off as her being “crazy,” and this is a phenomenon that I don't think exists with men to the same degree. Even now, whenever Kanye West appears to be acting with shaky mental health, you’ll hear the explanation that he is still dealing with the death of his mother, happening over eleven years ago (see this segment on The View for an example).

I won't claim that the discourse around Kanye West's mental health is never problematic or unempathetic, but I do think more compassion, and a desire to excuse some of his behavior, has been awarded to Kanye and other male artists than has been extended to Britney Spears.

In all of Britney's outlandish behavior, was the death of Britney's aunt ever brought up? Did people consider what being so outrageously famous from such a young age did to her emotional health? Or the fact that her first long-term boyfriend publicly slut-shamed her for years after their breakup? Even the accusation that Britney was being drugged, abused, and manipulated by her “manager” did not enter the public consciousness as possible reasons for her emotional collapse. There was no desire to investigate why Britney was acting the way that she was, as long as we could take it all as proof that she was “nuts.”

We should then consider how this attitude has contributed to the public disregard for her situation. Even with #FreeBritney gaining some mainstream attention recently, it's still mostly thought of as a conspiracy that's only gained traction on Stan Twitter and not something that should concern the rest of the public.

Conservatorship and guardianship abuse are not uncommon and most people affected by it do not have such a public stage on which to make the injustices of their situation known. Britney Spears may have the privilege of being a public figure whose situation will be discussed and possibly exposed, or exploited, by the media and her many fans, but the fact that much of the public has already made up their minds about Britney's mental aptitude does her a huge disservice.

I don’t know if Britney's conservatorship is necessary or if she's being mistreated, but I do know that enough suspicious activity (most of which I haven't even mentioned here) has been exposed surrounding the conservatorship that an in-depth, impartial investigation should have been demanded a long time ago.

When Kanye West does or says something outrageous again, there'll be discussions about his mental health struggles and responsibility will likely be placed onto his wife to take care of him, or maybe take away his social media access, but I doubt anyone will move to place him into a legal arrangement that strips him of his civil rights. Most people with mental illnesses are given the benefit of the doubt that despite their struggles and rough patches, they are still capable of making basic life decisions. Maybe it's time to extend that benefit of the doubt to Britney Spears.