Mental health and celebrity are two topics our culture is always evolving on. However, two things continue to remain true no matter which part of the evolution process we're in. One: there's very little understanding of mental health from those who have never experienced it. Two: celebrities' lives are subject to speculation from fans and media alike whether factual or not. It's an unfortunate reality that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. Both of these things are prominent factors in the viral #FreeBritney movement.
The movement began when a fan podcast called "Britney's Gram" received a voicemail from a man claiming to have been a former paralegal. This man claimed to have been involved with Britney Spears' conservatorship. He alleged Spears was forced into a mental facility against her will after her father (who is her conservator) canceled her upcoming Las Vegas residency, "Domination." According to the voicemail, the cancellation happened because she stopped taking her medication and refused to take a new medication the doctor suggested.
This goes against the initial report, which claimed Spears checked herself into a wellness center after dealing with stress from her father's illness. Jamie Spears suffered a life-threatening colon rupture, which caused Britney to go on an "indefinite work hiatus" in January. These new allegations raised concerns among fans, who got the #FreeBritney hashtag trending on Twitter. The point of the movement is to get Britney Spears out of her conservatorship.
The fact that fans would take someone at their word without any proof of credibility shows all that is wrong with today's outrage culture. The two hosts of the podcast claimed to have "verified" this source. Yet, they don't go into detail regarding their verification process. How are we supposed to believe them? Plus, isn't there an issue of confidentiality? Even though this man doesn't give out his name, we can still hear his voice. If he were really who he claimed to be, there would be serious consequences even though he claims to have quit.
It also shows people's deluded sense of power in this social media age. Spears' biggest fans honestly think that because they got a hashtag trending on Twitter, her conservatorship will end. They don't seem to understand how the legal system works or how mental illness shows itself. They say that since Spears is well enough to perform Vegas shows and go on tour, she's proven herself to be fine on her own.
Well, I've got news for you, that doesn't prove anything. Sure, she can go on tour and have a successful Vegas residency. However, she doesn't drive herself to Vegas every day. She has a team of people around her who make sure she fulfills her professional obligations. We've only seen Spears professionally successful when surrounded by a team that keeps things in order. She has yet to prove herself capable without it.
When Spears entered her twenties, she showed signs of rebellion against her team. However, this form of rebellion was self-destructive and lacked an understanding of what was in her best interests. The first sign of this behavior was when she married her childhood friend, Jason Alexander, in Las Vegas for fifty-five hours in 2004. Not exactly an example of someone who knew how to handle her own finances.
There was a time when Spears was finally on her own and didn't have to answer to anybody. It was after her divorce from Kevin Federline was filed and she began planning her "comeback." The year was 2007.
In that year, Spears' resumed going down her own rebellious, self-destructive path. She fired her longtime manager and replaced him with Sam Lutfi, a man who already had several restraining orders against him. She had a meltdown on the set of a photoshoot with OK! Magazine, which turned into a total disaster. She blew off a planned interview with Allure Magazine several times, before bailing on it completely. She gave up on a radio interview with Ryan Seacrest, handing the phone to her assistant so she could hop in the shower. Plus, who can forget the 2007 MTV VMA performance?
In short, Spears was destroying her professional reputation. This would also have a negative impact on her finances. She wouldn't be bringing in as much money and the money she did have wouldn't last much longer. I'm not pointing out Spears' self-destructive behavior to judge her. Quite the contrary. We now know that the reason for such behavior was her mental health. At the beginning of 2008, Spears was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital twice. There have been reports of her receiving a bipolar diagnosis, but nothing has been confirmed by her team. This is when Spears' father entered the picture and was granted a conservatorship.
What seems to be missing among fans is a clear understanding of what a conservatorship actually is. It is put in place so the conservator can handle the finances of someone incapable of doing so themselves. The type of conservatorship Spears is under doesn't give her father the right to force her into a mental health facility against her will. It also doesn't give him the right to force her to take medications she doesn't want to.
That said, in some extreme cases, there are people who need to be committed to a mental hospital against their will. Let's not forget that in 2008, Spears was placed under an involuntary 5150 hold. That type of hold is for those deemed "a danger to themselves or others." The fact that Britney's Gram podcast hosts had the nerve to call this a "consent issue," shows how out of touch they are with the severity of mental illness.
The fact of the matter is, every star at Spears' level needs a team to keep things in order. When you have that much money and demand from the public, it would be impossible for anyone to handle it by themselves. It's commonplace for big stars like Spears to have a manager and a publicist. Liz Rosenberg worked as Madonna's publicist until very recently. Throughout her career, there has rarely been an interview that Madonna has done where Rosenberg wasn't present at.
I bring this up because Britney's Gram podcast mentioned how Spears' manager would sit in on her interviews ever since the conservatorship began. As a fan of Spears since 1999, I can say that 2007 through early 2008 was absolute hell. It felt like there was a new Britney update every day. People were even worried for her life. So much so that the press even began writing her obituary. That's how bad it got.
She was overexposed and then some. I don't blame her team for trying to control how she is presented to the public. I don't blame them for trying to control what she talks about in interviews. By the time she was placed on a 5150 hold, her personal life was discussed more than her music. Even though she released "Blackout," which many fans claim to be her best album, it didn't matter. When she came back with the "Circus" album, it was so important for the focus to be shifted back to her music. It sounds to me like her team's need to control and protect her public image is more than justified.
It seems like many of the things Spears' team are being accused of might actually be in her best interests if true. The fact of the matter is, we don't know how Spears is in private. We see the Britney Spears her team wants us to see. We see the persona. We see the Britney Spears we're supposed to see. Her hardcore fans are in no position to say that ending her conservatorship and publicity machine would be a good idea.
Whatever the truth is, all the speculation has clearly had an effect on Spears. She posted a video message and caption to her Instagram, attempting to clear the air. In the post, she said that needs time to herself, but all the attention has made it harder for her. She pleaded with her fans for privacy. Instead, however, her fans responded with more conspiracy theories. They claim the video seemed forced and the caption was written by someone on her team.
Of course, the video was forced. Do you think this is something anybody would have an easy time discussing? What reason do we have to believe Spears herself didn't write the caption? She is asking for privacy and space, yet her fans are doing the opposite. Back in 2007, it seemed like the media was going to destroy her. Now, more than a decade later, her own fans seem to be stirring the pot. I know they're well-intended, but they need to pipe down for their own good. No matter what the truth is, a hashtag movement by bored Twitter activists isn't going to do Spears or her family any good.
I think Spears was in an unfortunate position once #FreeBritney went viral. If she didn't comment, speculation would continue to grow. If she did comment, the same fans would say she's lying. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. The best thing Spears can do is give herself a couple of days each week to ignore the internet and social media. She should tell her family and team not to notify her of any reports for those couple days. You can't control public opinion, so it's best to not let it get to you.
Britney Spears means a lot to many people, including me. When I was nine years old, I became a fan after seeing the "(You Drive Me) Crazy" video on MTV. I saw her in concert at Jones Beach when I was ten and it was a night I'll never forget. When her "Britney" album came out, it was around the same time I realized I was gay. The song "Let Me Be" described exactly how I was feeling at that time. "In The Zone" is my favorite of her albums, because it's the soundtrack to a time in my life when I felt a growing comfort in my own sexuality.
I think the one thing we all have in common, is that we're rooting for Britney Spears. Barely anybody wants to see her destroyed. She isn't someone who feuds with other artists or throws shade. She isn't known to be mean-spirited to anyone. She's one of these rare figures in entertainment that remains humble and genuinely seems like a nice person. As she said in her post, she is strong and I'm sure that strength will carry her through this current storm.
