Britney expresses her anger towards documentaries about her and that it was her voice that freed her from the conservatorship: HELPING ME? REALLY?

[x.rox]

4 minutes ago, Jsken said:

The idea that with all her traumatic experiences including being trafficked by her family for 13 year that a therapist would bother trying to "help her understand the good the documentaries did" does not make any sense at all

If it’s something she wanted to raise as an issue with a therapist about how she feels they humiliated her there could be some re-framing of that perspective. It makes perfect sense. A therapist responds to what the patient wants raise as an issue, not what therapist wants to raise as issues. The fact it bothers her so much would warrant it to be talked about. But it won’t be because she ain’t gunna see no therapist so! Lol. No point in event arguing about it.

[Kritney]

I completely understand her frustration as the documentaries didn’t know what she was truly going through. Nobody likes being made look like a victim. It was her testimony that cemented the truth.
But in their defense, none of us knew what was going on until Britney finally spoke out. We were all suspecting for years and years as the world was gaslit by the conservatorship. 

The documentaries gave worldwide attention to her cause, and put extremely intense pressure on the judges running her case to do the right thing or face public damnation and possible charges of corruption.

The documentaries didn’t free her, but they helped. 

[Lorenm]

Well, if Britney posted and deleted, then she thought some parts of her post were inaccurate or inappropriate. People sugar coating her every rant should reavalute their positions because Britney herself did it first.

[easy]

the issue of consent is really interesting. it's funny how people think the fact that these docu makers tried to get her consent and ultimately DID NOT, due to the control and isolation of the conservatorship, that some how makes the fact that they did, in fact, violate britney's consent ok????? IT DOESN'T. the point is, no matter what, they clearly DID NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE HAD her consent, and they went along and exploited britney for profit anyway. if these were made out of love and awareness for britney, why did they pay and interview paparazzi? perez hilton? sam lutfi? did they share their earnings with britney after she was free? did they donate their earnings to any organizations that help conservatorship abuse/trafficking victims? or did they line their pockets and pat themselves on the back for violating an abuse survivor AGAIN in the name of "helping" her?

[waynebradybyday]

1 minute ago, easy said:

the issue of consent is really interesting. it's funny how people think the fact that these docu makers tried to get her consent and ultimately DID NOT, due to the control and isolation of the conservatorship, that some how makes the fact that they did, in fact, violate britney's consent ok????? IT DOESN'T. the point is, no matter what, they clearly DID NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE HAD her consent, and they went along and exploited britney for profit anyway. did they share their earnings with britney after she was free? did they donate their earnings to any organizations that help conservatorship abuse/trafficking victims? or did they line their pockets and pat themselves on the back for violating an abuse survive AGAIN in the name of "helping" her?

Britney is a public figure of interest with a good story. Plenty of unauthorized documentaries and books are written on public figures without their consent. I'm not sure what the root of her issue is.... is it about consent, the documentaries being unflattering, or she feels she deserves more credit for her freedom? It seems to be the third more than anything.

[easy]

Just now, waynebradybyday said:

Britney is a public figure of interest with a good story. Plenty of unauthorized documentaries and books are written on public figures without their consent. I'm not sure what the root of her issue is.... is it about consent, the documentaries being unflattering, or she feels she deserves more credit for her freedom? It seems to be the third more than anything.

i don't like the issue of "well they tried to get her consent and they didn't so it's ok that they still went ahead with something that britney clearly doesn't like!!!!" being used as an excuse. it's very predatory imo. she deserves 100% of the credit for her freedom, and i will stand by that.

[Daniela.tomasseli]

I seriously can’t at the blind fans shading the documentaries just because Britney didn’t like them. 
 

I wonder what would happen if The New York Times decides to withdraw all the evidence they willingly provided to Rosengart to make her case. The kii 

[x.rox]

2 minutes ago, Daniela.tomasseli said:

I seriously can’t at the blind fans shading the documentaries just because Britney didn’t like them. 
 

I wonder what would happen if The New York Times decides to withdraw all the evidence they willingly provided to Rosengart to make her case. The kii 

Every fan base has them  unfortunately.

[Kletus]

1 hour ago, easy said:

i don't like the issue of "well they tried to get her consent and they didn't so it's ok that they still went ahead with something that britney clearly doesn't like!!!!" being used as an excuse. it's very predatory imo. she deserves 100% of the credit for her freedom, and i will stand by that.

Britney couldn’t have given consent anyway, I don’t think Britney knows what she’s talking about 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Forestblaze]

I love how everyone is posting their opinion when it doesn’t ****ing matter!! She’s telling us her reality right now and it’s up to her to ask for other’s opinions. She was traumatised by America and her family almost all of her life… and sadly it’s still happening (pap pics, gossip articles, these opinions ya’ll post, etc).

If she is saying these docs did her wrong then they did —  if you actually want to support her you need to believe her. You have no idea what she has been through so sit the **** down until (if ever) she wants to tell us everything she knows and feels. Her sharing how she feels is not up for a debate. Support her and let her heal for the love of Godney! 💛

[Hypnotherapy]

6 hours ago, Daniela.tomasseli said:

Sweetie I’m not taking any credit, Britney’s words are more than valid because at the end of the day it’s her life and she needed to be heard, however, she should stop barking at the wrong tree and she should stop trashing the media outlets (documentaries) that gave her unheard voice a platform. 

I am not a blind fan and I will not agree with the way she is been conducting herself towards people that their main -and only goal was the give her a voice when she couldn’t even use hers.

See that was NOT their only goal. Their goal- as it has been all her life- was to make money off her. Documentaries are not made, especially by huge media companies, for charity. They are made to make money. Why did nobody make a documentary in the 13 years leading up? Because they smelt it all coming down and it was a hot topic. Why when one was released did a bunch of copycats emerge? Because they were all Piggybacking off the success of each other. If the NYT really wanted to help Britney Spears’s freedom, they would not spend a year producing a doc that really did nothing more than produce little sound bites, use old footage and recycle fan theories- even watch the trailer- it’s a dramatisation of someone’s life, not a rallying cry to the court system. If these companies really wanted to help the multi-billionaire elite of Hollywood would have got her a lawyer years ago, they would have advocated for her, they would publish a stark and factual list of the abuses she was under on a front page naming and shaming those who were complicit. The docs got people taking about her- as always that’s what people do, talk about Britney Spears, and not all for the good, all you have to do is look at the comments from articles/videos/social at the time to see how many people were laughing at her, saying she needed to stay in a con. It was her finally speaking up in court and the testimony leaking live that got everything rolling. 
 

I just think none of us know what this is like. We literally can’t fathom it. So if Britney says that as an abuse victim of over 13 years seeing a huge company tell her story without her is humiliating then I believe her. 

[Forestblaze]

2 hours ago, easy said:

the issue of consent is really interesting. it's funny how people think the fact that these docu makers tried to get her consent and ultimately DID NOT, due to the control and isolation of the conservatorship, that some how makes the fact that they did, in fact, violate britney's consent ok????? IT DOESN'T. the point is, no matter what, they clearly DID NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE HAD her consent, and they went along and exploited britney for profit anyway. if these were made out of love and awareness for britney, why did they pay and interview paparazzi? perez hilton? sam lutfi? did they share their earnings with britney after she was free? did they donate their earnings to any organizations that help conservatorship abuse/trafficking victims? or did they line their pockets and pat themselves on the back for violating an abuse survivor AGAIN in the name of "helping" her?

THANK YOU!!! This is the truth. The actual ethics of journalism would never allow these types of documentaries. Do you all not realize they could have done all this in private AND donated to causes of her choice AND educated the public in ways that do not re-traumatize someone AND continue to write articles about why we should ban paparazzi photos AND retract and profusely apologize for past harm they did (NYT) AND LITERALLY anything else that doesn’t include showing unethical and immoral and non-consenting photos and videos of a human.

[Forestblaze]

5 minutes ago, Hypnotherapy said:

See that was NOT their only goal. Their goal- as it has been all her life- was to make money off her. Documentaries are not made, especially by huge media companies, for charity. They are made to make money. Why did nobody make a documentary in the 13 years leading up? Because they smelt it all coming down and it was a hot topic. Why when one was released did a bunch of copycats emerge? Because they were all Piggybacking off the success of each other. If the NYT really wanted to help Britney Spears’s freedom, they would not spend a year producing a doc that really did nothing more than produce little sound bites, use old footage and recycle fan theories- even watch the trailer- it’s a dramatisation of someone’s life, not a rallying cry to the court system. If these companies really wanted to help the multi-billionaire elite of Hollywood would have got her a lawyer years ago, they would have advocated for her, they would publish a stark and factual list of the abuses she was under on a front page naming and shaming those who were complicit. The docs got people taking about her- as always that’s what people do, talk about Britney Spears, and not all for the good, all you have to do is look at the comments from articles/videos/social at the time to see how many people were laughing at her, saying she needed to stay in a con. It was her finally speaking up in court and the testimony leaking live that got everything rolling. 
 

I just think none of us know what this is like. We literally can’t fathom it. So if Britney says that as an abuse victim of over 13 years seeing a huge company tell her story without her is humiliating then I believe her. 

OMG I love your response. My exact feelings!

[Forestblaze]

Defending the documentaries is like defending the system that stole years and years out of a person’s life.

[Heyyallzes]

35 minutes ago, Forestblaze said:

Defending the documentaries is like defending the system that stole years and years out of a person’s life.

This

[FemmeFataleBrit]

She’s always been grateful to her fans and has said that repeatedly that she thanks her fans for helping her escape the C-ship.

The documentaries did show some times of her life which I’m sure she didn’t want to see. 

Tbh I’m not mad at her because I really don’t like the lady who made the NYT documentary. She seems annoying af

[Monroe]

3 hours ago, Daniela.tomasseli said:

I seriously can’t at the blind fans shading the documentaries just because Britney didn’t like them. 
 

I wonder what would happen if The New York Times decides to withdraw all the evidence they willingly provided to Rosengart to make her case. The kii 

As i said before, most of these fanbase has no critical thought about anything at all. They're just puppets that says amem to everything Britney says first. I wonder if Britney would like to **** on their mouths, they would say she has every right to do it because it's her wish and her point of view, we have no right to think that's absurd and dumb

[Claire MJ]

14 hours ago, Kaitlyn Johnson said:

Yikes. I get her frustration, but I don’t think she actually grasps the reality of the situation she was in. Those docs made a lot of noise and greatly helped her situation. Comparing them to Will Smith or anyone else is a really far reach. I truly hope she is actively taking care of herself. 

Yup. Those docos helped legitimize the #FreeBritney movement, which she has acknowledged as allies. Without all the noise that the docos made, I think it's  possible for #FreeBritney to still be seen a bunch of conspiracy theorists. All the public pressure and attention forced Judge Penny to *finally* do the right thing. I hate to say this, but I'm not sure Rosengart would have succeeded on the merits of his legal arguments alone. He did a stellar job and Britney would no doubt still be under a conservatorship without him, but the public pressure helped tip the scales.

[HairFlipQueen]

8 hours ago, Anna Karina said:

It's because she's been lied to for 13 years. She does not know who to trust because her trust has been broken a million times, especially by her own family and team.

It will always be hard for her to trust, and for everyone else her feelings/statements will always feel conflicting. Girl went through a ton of trauma, it's simply not possible that everything she does and says is coherent all the time. People without trauma perceive things differently every day, now imagine how messed up your perception and identity is after being in a traumatic situation for so long. I think this is something people seem to forget, her mental health is fragile but it's NOT a bad thing and she's NOT crazy. Just hurt.

Yes agreed, she’s definitely not “crazy” which is a term I wouldn’t use anyway to describe someone because it doesn’t really mean anything and is usually used to be derogatory. 
 

Of course yes, she’ll have trauma, and even if any of us have trauma, we don’t have HER trauma so we’re not able to really understand what she feels like now.
It must be so soul destroying to feel like you literally can’t trust or believe people you thought were on your side. 

As I said her feelings about the docs are valid. 
 

However, reading more of the thread some people have brought up the point about using part of the NYT documentary in her upcoming lawsuit, so that’s confusing. Surely if she hates everything about them and disagrees with the principle, she wouldn’t do this? Or maybe she doesn’t know it’s being used. Or maybe she even thought **** it I hate it but I’m going to use it to my advantage, who knows!! 

[GlitterRain]

It’s refreshing to see her post so openly! I hope she’s okay though and isn’t too hurt because of all the documentaries