I wonder if today's updates will make Facebook think twice about their censorship with that misinformed USA Today hit piece

[MyahJeanSpears]

We have more than enough confirmation now that Britney WANTS OUT.

We have more than enough confirmation now that JAMIE is NOT fit to be conservator and is abusing his power.

We have more than enough confirmation now that JUDGE BRENDA PENNY is a dumb *****, letting a conservatee be in a 12 year conservatorship that she wants no part of, ran by her DRUNK FATHER who abused her AND her kids. 

If Facebook continues to ban Free Britney articles after today as FAKE NEWS, we will have to get more aggressive with the online campaign.

Six more ******* months. Six more months of Jamie earning 100k. Six more months of Tristar getting paid for doing **** all. Six more months of attorneys and lawyers who don't know what the **** they're doing to get their pockets fatter and richer. The incompetence of it all.

We should be outraged after today's outcome. We can not let this die down. There were not even many people at that rally today. I feel like this runs the danger of losing steam if dramatic action doesn't happen NOW. 

Today, TMZ has casually sent a death threat Britney's way for the second time in the span of 90 days. This is coming from Team CON and we SHOULD be concerned. I DON'T trust Ingham, I DON'T trust Jodie Montgomery. And I can't shake the feeling that they're plotting to make Jamie take the fall so the narrative can be that Britney is in "better hands" now. Don't fall for it. The conservatorship NEEDS to end. And thats on PERIOD.

[Applejack]

and that USA Today article was filled with bad fact checking that I pointed out in an email and another email and on twitter and they never bothered to correct. It was even before the last string of events

[Sia]

My take on the situation is that while I personally may not agree with the conservatorship and the length of it, I also recognize that I don't have all of the facts and details surrounding it and for that reason, I don't have any right to spread "information" about the ordeal to others. For over a decade, stories and details about the situation have been unclear, yet everyone acts as if they've been a fly on the wall throughout the proceedings.

The FACT is that nobody outside of the "Britney camp" knows the full details and I kind of side with Facebook on deeming these stories about the conservatorship as "fake news" because they're not based on fact. They're based on random court documents pieced together to fit a specific narrative.

 

"Britney's made it clear she wants out of it..."

Well of course she does...I mean, tell me the last time a kid volunteered to put themselves in time out. Just because she wants out of it doesn't mean it's not the best option for her. Again, I personally don't like it, but I'm choosing to be objective about the entire thing. For all we know, Britney could be completely inept to running her own life. God knows we've seen how well she does on her own...

[MyahJeanSpears]

31 minutes ago, Applejack said:

and that USA Today article was filled with bad fact checking that I pointed out in an email and another email and on twitter and they never bothered to correct. It was even before the last string of events

(The following is all alleged )

Yes that article was ******* horrid. And it goes to show their level of professionalism and journalistic integrity that they have still to update or retract certain information. But it was obviously a hit piece paid for by Britney's funds which are managed by her father and Tristar Entertainment. Lou is obviously TMZ's contact. She has connections with the Kardashians, and we all know Kris Jenner basically has TMZ in her pocket. I am 100% sure that's how that relationship started.

[Applejack]

55 minutes ago, MyahJeanSpears said:

(The following is all alleged )

Yes that article was ******* horrid. And it goes to show their level of professionalism and journalistic integrity that they have still to update or retract certain information. But it was obviously a hit piece paid for by Britney's funds which are managed by her father and Tristar Entertainment. Lou is obviously TMZ's contact. She has connections with the Kardashians, and we all know Kris Jenner basically has TMZ in her pocket. I am 100% sure that's how that relationship started.

I don't think it was like, something out of their pockets like it might be with TMZ. I think it's more people really having faith that no court of law would do harm to a very wealthy and cherished popstar. Therefore, the people taking care of her are good people. Therefore, the sources in the midst of the people taking care of her are for real.

Tbh I can even think something's up wtih TMZ's envolvement though, money wise... USA Today, probably not, but they probably have been embroiled in this cautioned approach. Just had a journo student close to me say there's no really clear violations so most papers were going to be obviously cautious. I just think they've been eating up those sources and that's not fair.

This is speculation lol

[Arckangel]

10 hours ago, Sia said:

My take on the situation is that while I personally may not agree with the conservatorship and the length of it, I also recognize that I don't have all of the facts and details surrounding it and for that reason, I don't have any right to spread "information" about the ordeal to others. For over a decade, stories and details about the situation have been unclear, yet everyone acts as if they've been a fly on the wall throughout the proceedings.

The FACT is that nobody outside of the "Britney camp" knows the full details and I kind of side with Facebook on deeming these stories about the conservatorship as "fake news" because they're not based on fact. They're based on random court documents pieced together to fit a specific narrative.

 

"Britney's made it clear she wants out of it..."

Well of course she does...I mean, tell me the last time a kid volunteered to put themselves in time out. Just because she wants out of it doesn't mean it's not the best option for her. Again, I personally don't like it, but I'm choosing to be objective about the entire thing. For all we know, Britney could be completely inept to running her own life. God knows we've seen how well she does on her own...

A c-ship is not meant to make sure someone runs their life "correctly." If so, all junkies, w****es,  lechers, sleazes and gamblers would also be placed under c-ship, esp. if rich (and perhaps also famous). It's put in place when the person is very sick, truly incapacitated to a serious level that prevents them from functioning at all, which is obviously not Britney's case.

[Isla]

It’s so stupid. There’s a post I and some of my friends shared on Facebook about Free Britney which got censored because of ‘false information’ with the fact checking attributed to the USA Today article. 

[Rob_]

12 hours ago, Sia said:

My take on the situation is that while I personally may not agree with the conservatorship and the length of it, I also recognize that I don't have all of the facts and details surrounding it and for that reason, I don't have any right to spread "information" about the ordeal to others. For over a decade, stories and details about the situation have been unclear, yet everyone acts as if they've been a fly on the wall throughout the proceedings.

The FACT is that nobody outside of the "Britney camp" knows the full details and I kind of side with Facebook on deeming these stories about the conservatorship as "fake news" because they're not based on fact. They're based on random court documents pieced together to fit a specific narrative.

 

"Britney's made it clear she wants out of it..."

Well of course she does...I mean, tell me the last time a kid volunteered to put themselves in time out. Just because she wants out of it doesn't mean it's not the best option for her. Again, I personally don't like it, but I'm choosing to be objective about the entire thing. For all we know, Britney could be completely inept to running her own life. God knows we've seen how well she does on her own...

I think it’s cute that you would choose to be naive about situations like this where people are easily manipulated and taken advantage of. There are numerous pieces of information shedding light on the severity of abuse and danger of the situation for the conservatee. Its important for information to be shared in order for these handlers to be held accountable.

[Sia]

5 hours ago, Rob_ said:

I think it’s cute that you would choose to be naive about situations like this where people are easily manipulated and taken advantage of. There are numerous pieces of information shedding light on the severity of abuse and danger of the situation for the conservatee. Its important for information to be shared in order for these handlers to be held accountable.

Again, you have no actual evidence of abuse or manipulation. What you know is what has been drafted in court documents, much of which is ambiguous and can be easily taken out of context. I think what has actually happened is that a certain segment of the population has projected its own feelings and opinions on the matter and found excerpts to help validate those thoughts. 

 

I get it, everyone is upset about it, but pretending that you're an expert on the matter is quite ridiculous.

[Anitta Elusive Chanteuse]

17 hours ago, Sia said:

My take on the situation is that while I personally may not agree with the conservatorship and the length of it, I also recognize that I don't have all of the facts and details surrounding it and for that reason, I don't have any right to spread "information" about the ordeal to others. For over a decade, stories and details about the situation have been unclear, yet everyone acts as if they've been a fly on the wall throughout the proceedings.

The FACT is that nobody outside of the "Britney camp" knows the full details and I kind of side with Facebook on deeming these stories about the conservatorship as "fake news" because they're not based on fact. They're based on random court documents pieced together to fit a specific narrative.

 

"Britney's made it clear she wants out of it..."

Well of course she does...I mean, tell me the last time a kid volunteered to put themselves in time out. Just because she wants out of it doesn't mean it's not the best option for her. Again, I personally don't like it, but I'm choosing to be objective about the entire thing. For all we know, Britney could be completely inept to running her own life. God knows we've seen how well she does on her own...

Exhale really said 

[PokemonSpears]

18 hours ago, Sia said:

My take on the situation is that while I personally may not agree with the conservatorship and the length of it, I also recognize that I don't have all of the facts and details surrounding it and for that reason, I don't have any right to spread "information" about the ordeal to others. For over a decade, stories and details about the situation have been unclear, yet everyone acts as if they've been a fly on the wall throughout the proceedings.

The FACT is that nobody outside of the "Britney camp" knows the full details and I kind of side with Facebook on deeming these stories about the conservatorship as "fake news" because they're not based on fact. They're based on random court documents pieced together to fit a specific narrative.

 

"Britney's made it clear she wants out of it..."

Well of course she does...I mean, tell me the last time a kid volunteered to put themselves in time out. Just because she wants out of it doesn't mean it's not the best option for her. Again, I personally don't like it, but I'm choosing to be objective about the entire thing. For all we know, Britney could be completely inept to running her own life. God knows we've seen how well she does on her own...

the thing is when people try to be objective, their objectiveness is "trust the system, don't trust the crazy fans", but the truth is,  there ARE factual things we do know, there are public records from the early hearings when the conservatorship was placed, and they're not randomly put together, there is a record of the case on that website; and of course we know what the law says about each type of conservatorship and the process they should have followed (but didn't) before placing someone under a conservatorship. The whole thing was wrong starting from the way they did things back then by not notifying her beforehand that they were intending to put her under a conservatorship and then denying her the right to hire her own lawyer to defend her.

we don't have Britney's medical records, but we have medical literature and many live examples to know the symptoms of a person who suffers of a severe case of dementia (which could be the only thing that would justify a conservatorship like Britney's, besides being in a coma or maybe having a severe mental impairment that would interfere with her basic body functions) and obviously we have evidence of everything she's been able to do during the conservatorship career-wise since the first month after the conservatorship was placed, and things just don't add up. Any other mental illness she may have that don't show evident symptoms like a case of dementia would, do not justify the existence of the conservatorship, again, that's not up to debate, that's what the law says. There is a specific type of conservatorship for mental illnesses, and that's not what they used with Britney.

We know for a fact she tried to fight back the conservatorship twice since the beginning, until she was refused the right to hire her own attorney or even appearing on court to speak to the judge, again, denying her the rights she had as a conservatee.

 

Yet you speak about how inept she was or could be at running her life before the conservatorship, as if you were a fly on the wall in her life back then, when all you have to back your claims is what the media and paparazzi put together on the tabloids to fit a specific narrative, see? , or what Jamie, Andrew Wallet, and everyone pro-conservatorship has told us to justify it. But people obviously don't want to hear that, because of course anyone who shaves their head or locks herself in the bathroom under false pretenses, must be automatically deemed as insane, I bet that must be like the first lesson they teach to medical students or something for people to be so sure about it. And even then, then you send the person to a mental facility to receive treatment, instead of sending her to work a month after the conservatorship was placed.

That's the other thing people fail to see, or just choose not to see it. There's no way someone can be so mentally ill and then be able to do everything Britney's done so far, there's just no way those two things are compatible. So they're either lying with the reasons to keep the conservatorship alive, or we're before one of the biggest cases of abuse and exploitation of a disabled person, and someone needs to pay for that.

 

Thing is, just like a lot of people could doubt the #FreeBritney claims, we do have even more reasons to doubt the need of a conservatorship, so it's unfair it gets censored and classified as fake news, when they've failed to prove why the conservatorship was the only option to help her in the first place. #FreeBritney isn't about freeing her from a facility like they said it was in 2019, nor freeing her from her home, it's about freeing her from the conservatorship.