The Uncomfortable Truth About Freeing Britney

Britney Spears Accidentally Reveals Bare Breast in New Dancing Video. Britney Spears Disheveled & Distressed in Airplane Photo. Britney Spears Drinking, Lighting Cigarette on Flight, Authorities Called. These are a few recent headlines that pop up when you search Britney Spears. Not new music, interviews, or positive developments, but tabloid gossip fueled by recurrent episodes of apparent chaotic behavior. These are the latest in a string of head-turning antics three and a half years on from the Free Britney movement’s massive legal victory—giving Spears a voice and advocating for her freedom from a 13-year long conservatorship. 

Though they’ve succeeded in revamping Spears’ image and facilitating a more empathetic relationship between herself and the media, especially in hindsight, now knowing what she was going through during her infamous 2007 breakdown that led to her shaving her head and being involuntarily hospitalized, it’s worth asking, was the Free Britney movement a little too naive and over-ambitious in its estimation that Spears is “completely fine?” 

I know that even the suggestion that Spears may suffer from mental health issues or drawing attention to her erratic behavior will cause many, especially among Spears’ most loyal fans, to dismiss this appeal to reason as just another indulgently cruel exploitation of the singer’s life in what should now be her best years. But while I grant that Spears is a 43-year old grown woman with legal freedom and unparalleled success, which I wish not to strip her of, it remains concerning that with the passing of time and more freedom, her well-being seems to be wilting rather than flourishing.

#FreeBritney

I had a professor once while I was studying abroad in Australia during the height of the Free Britney speculation, before Britney had spoken out publicly or contested her conservatorship legally, who called the Free Britney advocates who were claiming Spears is trapped in an abusive conservatorship and that her posts on Instagram are a cry for help “insane paranoid conspiracy theorists.” It wasn’t long until the Free Britney movement would be seemingly vindicated of their theory that Spears was trapped in an allegedly abusive conservatorship that left her powerless to control her own life or what she puts out online.

They became convinced that Britney was communicating with her fans through symbolic, coded messages and began trying to decode them. For example, one comment on her TikTok, which received a lot of likes, said, “If you need help, wear yellow in your next video,” and wear yellow, she did. About a month later, she even made an entire Instagram post explaining why yellow is her “favorite color.” It seemed like these regular occurrences were more than just coincidence, but intentionally implying distress through subtext. Many years later, in 2024, she’d upload a photo to Instagram wearing a yellow top with the caption, “Yellow top is not a warning, it’s just a top!!!” seemingly confirming that previous instances were subtle cries for help.

Along with this trajectory came the reveal that Spears was contesting her conservatorship for the first time since it had been imposed on her by her father, Jamie Spears, in February of 2008. Now, the Free Britney train was moving full steam ahead. With Britney set to testify on her own behalf, celebrities began speaking out in support, and there was a public outcry to bring attention to Britney’s fight for her freedom. The hype surrounding her court hearing was building. When she finally took the stand in June 2021, all eyes were on Britney.

Britney Spears Breaks Her Silence, Petitions Conservatorship

After years of radio silence on her 13-year conservatorship, Britney broke her silence with an explosive testimony alleging severe abuse and coercive extortion. Spears claimed her father, Jamie Spears, who acted as head conservator of her person and estate (until 2019, when Jodi Montgomery became conservator of her person and Jamie remained conservator of her estate) was abusive. She accused him of exploiting and controlling her for years while profiting off of her forced labor. According to Britney, she was worked to the bone, subjected to a grueling schedule of touring and performances she didn’t want to do, and any apprehension was met with threats of institutionalization, lawsuits, and new medications. 

Her 23-minute testimony was unrelenting in its excoriation of anyone remotely connected to her conservatorship—and she didn’t mince words. She compared her Las Vegas residency schedule to sex trafficking, alleging she was forced to endure ten-hour work days, seven days a week with no days off. Even small acts of resistance, like objecting to doing a single dance move in rehearsals, were reportedly met with threats of being forced into rehab and placed on lithium, a powerful psychiatric drug. 

Spears complained the drug made her feel drunk and unable to hold a basic conversation. She framed the medication as more of a punishment to enforce compliance rather than a standard mental health treatment protocol. She also argued that the conservatorship gave others sweeping power over her life, stripping her of personal freedoms and bodily autonomy. Addressing the judge and the public for the first time, she said she wasn’t allowed to drive in her boyfriend’s car, get married, or have an IUD removed so she could have another baby.

Most heartbreaking was her admission that she was unaware of her right to petition to end the conservatorship. Her life had become shaped entirely by her father, co-conservators, attorneys, and other appointed decision-makers for 13 long years. She expressed strong opposition to being required to meet with various therapists, doctors, and other professionals multiple times a week, including three weekly therapy sessions. They were strangers, not of her choosing, arranged in public paparazzi hotbeds intended to “humiliate her,” she claimed. One past therapist, now deceased, was accused of being abusive and inflicting lasting trauma. Subsequent therapy sessions were described as retraumatizing, conducted in similarly triggering settings.

Spears also objected to what she described as repeated, excessive four-hour psychiatric evaluations, bluntly stating that she didn’t believe she owed anyone any more assessments—that she’d done more than enough. She cited legal precedent for ending conservatorships without requiring further psychological testing.

Contending With Britney’s Perspective

Her testimony was emotionally compelling. It prompted a full reversal of her longstanding tumultuous relationship with the media. Now feeling partially responsible for participating— sometimes delighting—in tabloid gossip capitalizing on her public struggles, journalists began groveling to make amends for past sins. Where before Spears couldn’t catch a break, now she could do nothing wrong. Notably, after the release of the documentary Framing Britney Spears, which pointed a lot of fingers at the media for their poor treatment of the pop star in some of her most difficult days, there was a greater hesitancy to counter the now-mainstream narrative that Spears was perfectly fine, healthy, and self aware. 

Her allusions to work arrangements akin to sex trafficking, descriptions of medical abuse, and reproductive coercion were understandably appalling to the public, provoking a response of righteous indignation. However, I fear a dose of healthy skepticism got lost in the fanatical push to champion Spears’ fight for freedom. I don’t doubt her claims that her conservatorship was improperly handled, exploitative, and placed in the hands of an unfit conservator. I of course can’t verify these are all true, given we really only know one side of the story. On the merits, however, the conservatorship appeared to entail some perverse financial incentives and stripped her of some concerning civil rights, like bodily autonomy, her right to choose her own representation, and informed consent (it’s curious she remained unaware of her right to petition the conservatorship for 13 years). 

Some of Spears’ testimony though, including her presentation and the nature of her speech, raised some red flags that were swept under the rug at the time, even disingenuously mischaracterized as “stunningly articulate.” The problem is that Spears’ “impressive articulation” was something of an embellishment, to say the least. I grant a high-stakes, highly publicized hearing that determines whether you remain trapped in an allegedly abusive conservatorship or finally win your freedom can be a barrier to eloquence. Genuinely. I don’t raise this point out of snark. These conditions obviously lend themselves to nerves that can cause rapid, anxious speech and slips of the tongue. All things considered, she handled it reasonably well, especially since this was her first time addressing these highly personal grievances publicly.

Where before Spears couldn’t catch a break, now she could do nothing wrong.

However, Spears' demeanor during her testimony should not be judged in isolation but put in the context of her presentation in the years since, as well as the years before. Not only did Spears exhibit pressured speech, a feature of mania common in bipolar disorder, for which Spears has reportedly been diagnosed, but the manner of delivery was also jarringly unprofessional. This is a matter of fact, not opinion or personal vendetta against Britney Spears. She repeatedly dropped f-bombs, referred to the judge as “ma’am” rather than “your honor,” and made inappropriate remarks, such as calling the conservatorship “stupid” or referring to “these stupid people.” In the beginning of her speech, she made a bizarre allusion to “planting a huge bomb somewhere” to express being made to feel like the bad guy for establishing boundaries and quipped that she’s “not here to be anyone’s slave.”

This colorful language is incredibly atypical for a formal court case and is desperately lacking proper courtroom decorum. Inappropriate remarks aside, Spears repeatedly had to be told to slow down because she was speaking too fast for the stenographer to record the words into the transcript. She was clearly reading off of a written statement, as she prefaced at the start of her address, but it was incredibly jumbled and chaotic. The sentences were notably grammatically incorrect, repeated the same claims, and veered off into emotionally charged tangents. It lacked the polish and composure you'd expect from someone trying to win over a judge and was more akin to one of her rambling Instagram posts.

She makes a number of curious claims during her testimony that were not subject to meaningful scrutiny, even if the claims were implausible and unsupported by evidence. For instance, Spears claimed that she had to “give eight gals of blood a week.” Assuming she misspoke and meant to say vials rather than gallons, which would be absurd, it’s still a far-fetched claim. While regular blood monitoring is mandatory when taking lithium due to its narrow therapeutic window (ensuring there isn’t too little or too much in the bloodstream), routine lithium monitoring simply doesn’t warrant that volume or frequency of blood draws. Blood is typically taken once or twice per week while doctors adjust the dosage to safe and effective levels, then monthly once it stabilizes, and eventually every three months for maintenance during the first year. Depending on stability and risk factors, testing may be spaced out further, such as every six months, after that point. No standard psychiatric protocol would call for anything close to eight vials weekly.

Spears made a lot of bold claims that were never supplemented with evidence, making a lot of her testimony hearsay. The fact that we have quite literally only heard one side of the story seems to have seriously gotten lost in the sauce. Of course, Spears wasn’t required to provide documentation or prove her claims under oath. This was a court hearing, not a trial. She wasn’t being cross-examined, and the burden of proof was low. That’s understandable. Evidently, there was enough information for the judge to make the decision to terminate her conservatorship, and a previous co-conservator of her estate, Andrew Wallet, had raised concerns about potential for financial mismanagement if he wasn’t replaced. 

In a court filing he wrote, “Substantial detriment, irreparable harm, and immediate danger will result to the conservatee and her estate if the relief requested herein is not granted on an ex parte basis.” (To be clear, this was not the inciting reason for his resignation despite incorrect suggestions to the contrary in the press, just something he was flagging as a risk upon his departure.) Jamie Spears was left as the sole conservator of Britney’s estate for 20 months, until the court appointed Bessemer Trust as co-conservator in November 2020, though they never formally engaged in this role due to procedural delays and amid the publicized court case, they filed a petition to withdraw from the role entirely.

Some of the alarming accusations made by Britney, if approached with a modicum of scrutiny, could be an indicator of framing situations in hyperbolic terms. Here's one little section of Britney's testimony: "They all lived in the house with me; the nurses, the 24-7 security, there was one chef that came there and cooked for me daily, during the week days. They watched me change every day naked, morning, noon and night. My body, I had no privacy. No door for my room. I gave eight gallons of blood each week. If I didn’t do any of my meetings, from 8 to 6 at night, which is 10 hours a day, seven days a week, no days off, I wouldn’t be able to see my kids or my boyfriend." 

That sounds like the plot to a psychological horror film; not that these things don't happen, but we should determine whether Britney is a reliable narrator, first. Britney notes that she was told she kept failing psychological tests, which is framed as part of a conspiracy against her rather than an indication that she has reduced capacity for self awareness. Spears curiously frames everyone as an aggressor, including a since-deceased therapist, who she claims abused her and "got on her knees and thanked God" when he passed away. 

This might sound understandable in isolation, but when everyone is framed as persecutory and she, as the victim, it raises red flags. We're talking: entire family is framed as abusive, including mom, dad, and later sister on Instagram. Co-conservator Jody, who she said is "starting to take it too far with me," her therapist, her team, various treatment centers and other medical professionals. She frames the orchestration to have her go seek treatment in West Lake which is supposedly in an exposed, public area that draws paparazzi, as a sinister plot to humiliate her rather than a logistical decision having to do with the fact she already went to West Lake for rehearsals.

In the span of a 23-minute speech, she accused her family, management, the state, and courts of being against her, she made claims of being under surveillance, and interpreted likely well-intentioned medical decisions as being bad faith set-ups to embarrass her or make her look bad, indicating potential paranoia and anosognosia (a lack of insight into her mental health condition). Her speech is consistent with manic or hypomanic speech patterns, and she exhibited a disregard for formality and appropriate language in addressing the judge.

She spoke at a breakneck speed, often seemingly going on rambling tangents that lacked coherent organization. They seemed more like a flight of ideas with very loose associations between them. In one moment, she’s claiming her dad delighted in emotional sadism, loving the control of hurting his own daughter, to claiming her management threatened her and should be in jail, and then a random aside about Miley Cyrus smoking a joint at the VMAs. 

It's common for someone experiencing a manic episode to oscillate between grandiosity and persecutory delusions. These tend to be global rather than interpersonal, such as blaming entire institutions for abuse. Because I believe Britney was genuinely in a problematic arrangement that certainly could have involved some level of exploitation and inappropriate micromanaging, it can be incredibly difficult to know what grievances are legitimate and what are being muddied through the cognitive distortion of black-and-white thinking.

Spears’ History Suggests Considerable Struggles With Mental Health to the Point of Impairment & Dysfunction

Having an unmanaged mood disorder doesn’t exactly lend itself to having an objective self assessment. People have learned this the hard way with Kanye West. As much as people insisted that he was totally fine; merely just misunderstood and eccentric, it became harder to buy this line of thinking when it led to incoherent ramblings about the jews while wearing a ski mask over his head. The problem with being a celebrity with a disorder such as bi polar is that our frame of reference for what is “normal” is incredibly off kilter, especially when they have some form of plausible deniability, like a cabal of elites keeping them down in a sinister conservatorship.

If a normal person says on a random Saturday, completely out of left field, that they’re going to run for president, we might think they’ve lost their grasp on reality. But for a celebrity? It’s just Tuesday. I have an incredible amount of empathy for Britney. And Kanye, too. I don’t think the human mind can handle fame; certainly not on the level of superstardom that the Britney Spears has achieved. Unfortunately, that level of legacy comes at a cost—of your dignity; of your sanity. I can’t say I’d manage any better, especially not coming up as a child star in the public eye. But this behavior doesn’t exist in a vacuum. 

Spears' testimony sits in the middle of a long and deeply fraught history of public breakdown, psychiatric holds, and erratic behavior that long predated her conservatorship and has only escalated since it ended. It’s worth considering that conservatorships are not inherently abusive or illegitimate. Many are put in place to save someone from spiraling out of control. They can be life-saving for someone oscillating between high highs and low lows or making risky, impulsive, and life-threatening decisions. The decision to establish one or to get it approved is not made lightly, regardless of what the public may think in the Free Britney craze. 

It’s worth considering that conservatorships are not inherently abusive or illegitimate.

They’re actually incredibly rare and difficult to obtain in the state of California, which is why people like Dr. Drew have been advocating for reform to do something about the drug addicted, mentally ill homeless population on the streets. There’s virtually nothing that can be done to help them because of this “live and let live” libertarian attitude that we must let people have the freedom to unravel and slowly kill themselves. The idea that someone can be placed in a conservatorship frivolously is just disingenuous. By all accounts of her family and people within inside knowledge of Britney’s medical history, the conservatorship saved her life. 

That’s an important reality for countless people suffering from the same condition as Britney, especially with compounding lifestyle risks, like fame and fortune. Should Britney’s conservatorship have lasted 13 years? Perhaps not. But that’s not so easy to determine without intimate knowledge of her capacity or the extent of her impulsivity or recklessness. 50% of people with bipolar disorder experience psychosis during manic episodes, which causes a break from reality. Imagine experiencing psychosis with millions of dollars at your disposal or shady people in your inner circle ready to help you self implode.

To determine if this conservatorship was problematically put in place, we first have to rewind to the when and why of it all. Britney’s public unraveling began in 2007, when she famously shaved her head in a hair salon and shortly after attacked a paparazzi's car with an umbrella. A day prior, she had checked into a Crossroads rehab facility in Antigua but checked out in less than 24 hours. This stint was reportedly voluntary, at the urging of friends and family who were concerned about her partying and drinking habits, and had staged an intervention. Later that month, she checked into Promises Treatment Center in Malibu, where she stayed for a month and successfully completed an alcohol and drug rehab treatment.

She had filed for divorce from Kevin Federline, whom she shared two children with, in 2006. The couple agreed to share joint custody of their two sons and their divorce was finalized by early 2007. This was a tough year for Spears who has since described her public meltdown in hindsight as an evident struggle with postpartum depression, exacerbated by media scrutiny and unrelenting invasion of privacy by the paparazzi, who took photos of her when she was with her children. They captured photos of her driving down Pacific Coast Highway with her infant son in her lap as well as footage of her baby suffering scratches after falling out of a highchair.

By late 2007, she would lose custody of her children. Earlier in the year, a judge ordered her to undergo random drug and alcohol testing, parenting classes, and to attend counseling with Federline. She failed to comply with court-ordered testing and supervision requirements and the court ruled she was a "habitual and continuous drug user," causing her to lose sole physical custody of her children by the end of the year. In the beginning of 2008, after reportedly locking herself in a bathroom for three hours and refusing to hand over her children to their father, despite a court order, she lost all visitation rights.

The incident prompted a police response, and she was carried out on a stretcher, committed under a 5150 psychiatric hold. These are involuntary hospitalizations that are reserved for the most severe episodes of psychiatric distress, when people are deemed a danger to themselves or others. There were reports of Britney being on an unknown substance. However, she was determined “stable” after 24 hours and released.

A second 5150 was initiated that same month, and she was placed on another 72-hour psychiatric hold, this time at UCLA Medical Center, after displaying erratic, manic behavior, reckless driving and not sleeping for days. These are hallmark signs of unmanaged bipolar disorder. Her psychiatrist reportedly contacted the police after determining she required hospitalization and she was transported to the hospital under heavy police escort. This hold was later extended to a 14-day involuntary psychiatric hold. Citing the reason for her stay, hospital staff members cited a section in the state law that allows patients to be retained for medical treatment if they are found to be gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others.

Accounts of Spears' stay characterize her in a manic state after reportedly not sleeping for five days and launching into a tirade in the hospital screaming for her boyfriend, who she had accused her mother, Lynne, of trying to sleep with. "The only reason she's admitting me is because she wants to be alone with her boyfriend. She wants to sleep with my boyfriend," Spears reportedly said, and was promptly sedated to calm her down. 

It’s been widely reported that Spears has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, along with comorbid substance abuse and her hospitalization was planned days in advance by her psychiatrist and family, according to news reports. This second hospitalization led her father and Britney’s attorney, Andrew Wallet, to petition for a temporary conservatorship, which he was granted the same day. Six days later, she was released, against medical advice.

The conservatorship was repeatedly extended and the court ruled that Britney didn't have the mental capacity to retain her own legal counsel, so she had a court-appointed attorney, Samuel Ingham. Throughout 2008, she was kept under tight restrictions and controlled visitation with her children. Towards the end of the year, the conservatorship was made indefinite, no longer requiring renewal every few months. This effectively made the conservatorship "permanent" unless Britney actively petitioned to have it terminated, which she testified she didn't know how to do, in 2021. This resulted in a 13-year conservatorship that raised valid concerns about autonomy and individual rights.

And yet, the moment she was released from the conservatorship in 2021, things began to unravel again. She was finally free to do as she pleased: to marry (and shortly after, divorce) her boyfriend, Sam Ashgari. To try for a child. To step away from music with integrity. To cut ties with toxic people. To say and do what she wants. But with all that freedom came sporadic Instagram posts filled with incoherent captions, strange dancing videos of Britney spinning like a cyclone, talking in weird accents, and making concerning comments. In one video, she claims that she’s not turning 42, but is actually turning five years old and is starting kindergarten. In another, she’s dancing with knives that she claimed were fake but sounded concerningly real, prompting a welfare check from police.

The police were called yet again in 2024, after causing a disturbance at the Chateau Marmont. Spears was reportedly yelling at hotel employees and guests, then went to her hotel room with her boyfriend, where they continued partying and drinking. Spears has a history of substance abuse, repeated rehab stays, and alcohol is a known destabilizer in people with bipolar disorder. Police were called a second time a few hours later, after she was heard screaming and crying in a hotel hallway. 

She was found wrapped in a blanket and holding a pillow, with little clothes on, and appeared to have physically injured her leg. Though there were rumors of a potential 5150 being placed out of concern for her wellbeing, Spears went home after declining medical treatment. She exited the hotel barefoot, and though she was captured by paparazzi clutching a pillow and wearing minimal clothes, she later took to Instagram claiming this was fake news and "most of the pics were body doubles."

Her fans, the most vocal Free Britney champions, remain sycophantically delusional, insisting the outbursts, the vacant eyes, the incoherent ramblings, the bizarre Instagram posts, are nothing more than a recently freed woman trying to make up for lost time. But in between the spinning and the wacky captions, her behavior veers from eccentric into unhinged. She’s bearing all of her bits for public consumption, which reportedly upset her teenaged sons, who she had been estranged from because they found her social media presence upsetting and she hasn’t been a steady presence in their life considering the repeated loss of custody and institutionalization.

Her appearance is notably unkempt, often boasting raccoon-like dark eyes and mangled hair. These comments aren’t borne out of malice, but concern, as neglecting personal hygiene and having a disheveled appearance is a known marker of mental illness, especially mood disorders. Her Instagram has often been filled with combative accusations against her family and handlers. Besides the numerous professionals involved in her conservatorship, she’s taken to Instagram to accuse her father and mother of abuse, and expressed wishing they both burn in hell.

Her fans would rather believe that she’s died and been replaced than contend with what mental illness really looks like.

She also sparked an online feud with her sister in 2022 amid the release of her memoir, calling her a selfish little brat and accusing her of betrayal, even referencing grievances from when Jamie Lynn was only 12-years old. Then came the public shaming of her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, and their two sons. Most people would grant that children choosing to make the painful decision to go no-contact with their mother aren't doing so for trivial reasons; rather the situation has to become painfully untenable. 

But when Britney takes to Instagram to publicly shame her teenage sons, calling them “hateful” and suggesting they only resumed contact to secure their inheritance, or posting statements like, “I’m afraid to inform you guys I’m not willing to see you until I feel valued,” it starts to resemble narcissistic parenting or persecutory delusions stemming from a mental health condition more than maternal distress.

Trashing her own sons on Instagram hardly gives the appearance of a mature, self-aware 43-year old mother. Though recent developments suggest that Britney is in some contact with her sons and they’re working on improving their relationship, the Free Britney crowd remains convinced that every person, family member, loved one—her own sons, more comfortable going No Contact with their own mother than dealing with the tornado of her presence in their lives, is in the wrong. Britney has done, apparently nothing, to warrant this sort of exhausted retreat. The world is out to get her.

It’s worth noting that people suffering from mental crises who genuinely need to be committed for their own safety and wellbeing frequently feel betrayed by loved ones staging interventions or getting them help. This is precisely what happened when friends of Eugenia Cooney had her 5150d, terrified she would starve herself to death, which jump-started her eating disorder recovery but also caused deep seated resentment against the friends who committed her (followed by a subsequent apparent relapse in her condition).

Dr Drew. poses a perfectly valid question, “why if somebody has dementia and is gravely disabled and psychotic and disorganized—that person, if you do not mandate their medical care—you are involved in elder abuse, and somebody with a different brain disease with the same symptom complex, you're not allowed to get near? With what certainty do we know that this conservatorship was borne out of a desire to exploit and control rather than altruistic concern for a young girl self destructing in front of the world?" I’m not filled with as much false confidence as the Free Britney Movement boasts.

Britney’s Uncertain Future

After years of exhibiting terminal conspiracy brain, escalating their theories of hidden messages in her Instagram from questionable but plausible to just batshit insane theories about being cloned, and invoking endless get-out-of-jail free cards by insisting that any bad or questionable behavior exhibited by Britney is nothing more than a carefully orchestrated plot by her handlers to make her look bad has made engaging in this issue in good faith impossible. 

If Britney’s exhibiting clear signs of a mental break, they claim she’s being held hostage and presumably being beaten or threatened by mysterious forces behind the camera, or she’s being told what to say, or set up to look crazy. Some even claim “that’s not Britney” despite incontrovertible evidence that it is. It’s always someone else setting her up. It’s for this reason that I feel I have to grieve not just the past Britney was robbed of, but of the future her fans deprive her of by enabling her delusions and erratic behavior. They’d rather believe that she’s died and been replaced than contend with what mental illness really looks like.

The press have gone to great lengths to recharacterize behavior that fits the diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder to a T as “misogyny” claiming the years of public struggle was nothing more than media spectacle mischaracterizing normal difficulties as “hysteria.” Of course, it’s easy to see things this way when you’ve had no real experience with serious mental illness. Having a mental health condition doesn't make Britney a bad person, a bad mother, or deserving of punishment. It does, however, make her, at times, unreliable, and out of touch, in the event that this condition is unmanaged (and especially if walking around with that unmanaged condition is being explicitly encouraged by everyone around her). 

I think history will prove that the Free Britney movement was born out of good intentions, but grossly oversimplified a complicated, messy tragedy involving complex legal and mental health issues that aren’t easily solvable. Her behavior is incredibly typical of episodic mood disorders—erratic, incoherent, accusatory (when unstable)—but Free Britney fans will take any claims made under this state at Britney’s word rather than the unreliable symptoms of mental illness. It’s not always a cut-and-dry case of the evil machiavellian exploiters versus the perfect, innocent victim. The truth is often somewhere in between. 

That’s the saddest part, because it leaves Britney with an ending that’s not exactly a happily ever after nor filled with closure, but an uphill battle filled with ups and downs: relapses, confusion, and heartache. I fear that should there come a day where Britney does need more medical intervention, the court of public opinion will have ensured that it’s denied to her.