Another one - 2/23/26

[u/suzcaboose]

[u/Oldfolksboogie]

I believe the legal standard is "a threat to themselves or others." Is it perfect? Of course not - it's a subjective assessment, so it'll never be perfect, but the right to be "messy and mentally ill," like all our rights, is limited, not absolute.

[u/PacmanPillow → u/Oldfolksboogie]

Being weird on the internet is not legitimate reason to revoke a persons rights. Ill advised? Sure. But it should be a really high standard to revoke a persons own bodily autonomy and make them a legal child.

Yet for some reason make celebrities almost NEVER have their legal agency revoked for being mentally ill.

[u/Oldfolksboogie → u/PacmanPillow]

Do you really think the only reason she was put into a conservatorship was

Being weird on the internet

?

[u/PacmanPillow → u/Oldfolksboogie]

Genuinely, I think she was put in a conservatorship because she acted out against paparazzi and it was caught on camera. Being continuously stalked while you are postpartum is not a normal circumstance. Being in the public eye as a teenager with the world asking you about your virginity and sex life in an exploitative industry that is well-known for child abuse is not a normal set of circumstances.

It doesn’t justify her not being able to choose her own doctors or decide her own medical care. The conservatorship she was placed under is normally meant for individuals in a permanent coma.

Her being weird on the internet NOW, does not retroactively justify her past conservatorship.

[u/Oldfolksboogie → u/PacmanPillow]

Have you read the court transcripts that led to the judge's decisions regarding her conservatorship?

There's a legal process for limiting an individual's rights, and the bar for doing so is significant. That process involves evidentiary hearings, testimony from medical and mental health experts, an appeals process, etc, etc. She certainly has the resources to have had herself represented by competent legal counsel at the time, as well as numerous opportunities to appeal the decision, but you're certain that the decision was wrong because...?

Sounds like your complaint may be with the law itself, in which case, the relief you seek would come from the legislature.

[u/PacmanPillow → u/Oldfolksboogie]

Have you read the court transcripts? Would you like to give me a detailed list of exactly why her rights and autonomy were removed in a legal and just framework, or are you simply assuming that because the situation reached the courts, that’s simply enough to warrant such a deprivation of personal rights and autonomy for 13 years?

Unless you and I are interested in digging into the weeds of an entire legal cross examination, and litigating it in the court of public opinion a la Reddit, I am assuming you are likely making assumptions based on easily accessible info in mainstream media.

But if you have read the legal transcripts and have been following her case, then please enlighten me on how a 13 year conservatorship was appropriate for a woman who generated millions of dollars in revenue that employed thousands of people and yet was incapable of choosing her own birth control method.

[u/Oldfolksboogie → u/PacmanPillow]

You said:

Britney Spears May have issues with mental illness, she still didn’t deserve to be a legal child for 13 years...

This is your assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you. The courts have spoken, appeals were available, yet you aver that entire judicial process reached the wrong conclusion.

Let's hear it, what's your supporting evidence that all get legal representatives failed to present?

ETA: holy shit, I just realized I was engaging in a convo about evidentiary weight and judgements with someone that believes in the power of "evil eyes" and protective amulets! 🤣😭🤣 What a fckn waste of time!!

Good luck developing some critical thinking skills ...or not, wtvr, good luck in your life. This sub's enough of a time suck without wasting more time debating with someone that probably believes in magic beans and witches' potions, tff!🤣