Team CON Allegedly Trademarked “Free Britney”

[Isla]

Disgusting. 

[GirlOnTheMoon]

They all deserve to rot in hell

[AmorProhibido]

Okay y'all, if  this is true, then we need to band together and chip in to purchase the copyright for a new hashtag. So now the question is, what do we want to use? If we can come up with a new one and figure out a way to make it go viral, I'd totally buy it.

[TylerSanchez]

I just searched it through a few different trademark agencies and it says it’s available... someone should grab it before they actually do it 

[alluvion]

20 minutes ago, C0CKy said:

That all sounds good in theory. But they’ve already exercised how they can violate our first amendment by shutting down accounts (lawyers for Britney and others,) and blocking comments that mention Free Britney as spam. Lou suing domain owners and fans for reposting news that was already out. Facebook flagging FB as fake news and using some bogus USA Today article as the gospel. Also where’s Britney’s first amendment for her freedom of speech? It doesn’t exist and hasn’t existed for her for over 12 years. Freedom of speech is an illusion. 

Again: accounts on sites/apps are the decision of private businesses. Twitter/FB-Instagram/YouTube/Reddit/etc are private businesses. They can make whatever restrictions to their platforms that they want. And they do. All of them censor all kinds of content because of their private interests. The 1st Amendment does not apply to private businesses. It means the government cannot forbid a person from speaking. So, you can't sue someone for speaking about you. You can sue them for slander and libel, but that means whatever they're claiming is fully disclosed in court -- so, Lou isn't going to go down that path. 

[C0CKy]

3 minutes ago, alluvion said:

Again: accounts on sites/apps are the decision of private businesses. Twitter/FB-Instagram/YouTube/Reddit/etc are private businesses. They can make whatever restrictions to their platforms that they want. And they do. All of them censor all kinds of content because of their private interests. The 1st Amendment does not apply to private businesses. It means the government cannot forbid a person from speaking. So, you can't sue someone for speaking about you. You can sue them for slander and libel, but that means whatever they're claiming is fully disclosed in court -- so, Lou isn't going to go down that path. 

I see. But didn’t Lou sue Anthony and Bryan for slander and defamation? And again, Britney’s 1st amendment has been taken away by these people and not just in a private business setting. A lot of her protections and civil rights were violated from the very start when they decided not to notify her that they were initiating the CONservatorship. Never mind the fact they did it under false pretenses and undiagnosed conditions. They seem to operate outside of the law even within the courts. 

[alluvion]

1 minute ago, C0CKy said:

But didn’t Lou sue Anthony and Bryan for slander and defamation? 

Link?

1 minute ago, C0CKy said:

Britney’s 1st amendment has been taken away by these people and not just in a private business setting. A lot of her protections and civil rights were violated from the very start when they decided not to notify her that they were initiating the CONservatorship. Never mind the fact they did it under false pretenses and undiagnosed conditions. They seem to operate outside of the law even within the courts. 

Right, legally, Britney Spears is not a person. She's been de-personed by the court. And thus has no legal rights. So, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect her. She is restricted to whatever her conservators agree to restrict her to and that has included forbidding her from speaking and writing about her situation, and going to great lengths to keep her from doing so. 

[C0CKy]

30 minutes ago, alluvion said:

Link?

Right, legally, Britney Spears is not a person. She's been de-personed by the court. And thus has no legal rights. So, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect her. She is restricted to whatever her conservators agree to restrict her to and that has included forbidding her from speaking and writing about her situation, and going to great lengths to keep her from doing so. 

That’s not supposed to be the case. She shouldn’t have her civil rights removed even under this arrangement. Their scope of power over her has extended far past what the law allows. Even people in conservatorships have legal rights: she should be able to hire her own lawyer, replace her conservator, control her finances, send and receive mail, marry, vote, etc., yet all of these rights have been removed from her. 


Bryan defamation article

Anthony defamation article

[alluvion]

7 minutes ago, C0CKy said:

That’s not supposed to be the case. She shouldn’t have her civil rights removed even under this arrangement. Their scope of power over her has extended far past what the law allows. Even people in conservatorships have legal rights: she should be able to hire her own lawyer, replace her conservator, control her finances, send and receive mail, marry, vote, etc., yet all of these rights have been removed from her. 


Bryan defamation article

Anthony defamation article

Correct. It's 'not supposed to' be that way, but in her case -- and in the case for many many people under the same constraints -- that is the situation. 

Thanks for the links. Will check them in a bit.

[Body ache]

LOUser can rot in her prison cell. We can use #ReleaseBritney, #FreeBritneyLou, #SaveBritney, #FreexBritney, etc.

[Buffybot]

Actually... It's plausible, money hungry mess. I can see Britney releasing a song about freedom even If the c-ship keeps in place.

The good thing is that they're promoting the movement, even If they're making money of It. Free Britney can became a pop culture thing and that means way more people will know about It and support, the regular people doesn't know her team is behind all of this now.

[Dream Within a Dream]

Can we chip in to hire a hitman from the dark web instead? This Is some inhumanly ****ed up ****. 

[pieceofbritUK]

This is insane, we should chip in for a trademark and get a documentary done about all of this. And get exhalers on it. Like, "don't fu.ck with Britney" or something.

[martini88]

12 minutes ago, Dream Within a Dream said:

Can we chip in to hire a hitman from the dark web instead? This Is some inhumanly ****ed up ****. 

👆

[TylerSanchez]

33 minutes ago, Dream Within a Dream said:

Can we chip in to hire a hitman from the dark web instead? This Is some inhumanly ****ed up ****. 

Jokes aside be careful what you’re saying her team most definitely check here 

[ShatteredGlass98]

Oh Jesus no 

[jennyj]

Either it was trademarked. just flat out dirty money paid to shut people up, or it was filed as defamation/slander against her. But that wouldn't be possible unless it was proven in court.  So who knows.... it'd be interesting if someone can check the US trademark office if it's actually true.

[vzlafan]

3 hours ago, leanne0019 said:

Just when I thought they couldn't go lower.

They continue to underestimate the Britney Army. Like, I think we have enough of a following to just start a new hashtag. Once we spread the word that they trademarked #FreeBritney, we'll just get that much more attention. 

Also, let's trademark LOUcifer before she does.

thisssss 

if we don't got the budget, at least we are thousands instead of a group of people.

we need 

telegram and kik groups

PR and gets new hashtags

Don't subestimate this people

[GlitterSlayDExhaleHI]

4 hours ago, MakeMeFweaky said:

The merch from Spencer’s is NOT officially licensed merch as there is no trademark on the design and someone who bought it confirmed it has a generic Gildan tag on the inside. 

Hey Gilden is actually decent quality for a budget brand. 

[summer2summer]

Yeah guys we need bigger funds and move our assess. make more noise and get to court somehow.

Should we arrange to flood trump's twitter to get a response from the white house? desperate times ........