Author: JOLT

By: Sophie Thornton

 

Conservatorships typically apply to the elderly or severely mentally incapacitated.[1] However, a different view of conservatorships was suddenly thrust into the public eye when Britney Spears was placed under a conservatorship in 2008.[2] The #FreeBritney movement began to gain momentum in 2019.[3] By 2021, pop culture icon Britney Spears’ 13-year long conservatorship was terminated.[4] A movement that started on social media gained enough traction to not only change the course of Britney’s life but to spur potential reactive legislation against harsh and abusive conservatorships. [5]

A conservatorship is “the appointment of a conservator by the court to manage a person’s affairs who is unable to handle them due to their mental capacity, age, or physical disability.”[6] Conservatorships can be short-term, temporary, or permanent in duration.[7] They may also be financial, physical, or both.[8] A financial conservatorship gives the conservator “full authority over the conservatee’s finances,” while a physical conservatorship gives the conservator authority over “the conservatee’s health and life.”[9] Finally, a conservatorship may be general or limited.[10] A general conservatorship provides the conservator with complete authority over all significant decisions concerning the conservatee. In contrast, a limited conservatorship gives the conservator control over only specific aspects of the conservatee’s life.[11]

Britney Spears was placed under a temporary conservatorship in 2008 after going through a divorce, losing custody of her two children, and attending two mental health facilities.[12] The media depicted her visits as evidence that she had a mental health condition.[13] Within that same year, Britney’s conservatorship was made permanent.[14] From 2008 until 2018, Britney continued to release albums, go on world tours, participate in long-term performance commitments in Las Vegas, and make other media appearances.[15] From 2008 to 2013, Britney’s father, Jamie Spears, acted as the conservator of Britney’s person.[16] From 2008 to 2019, he also acted as conservator of her finances.[17] This meant that Mr. Spears received a salary as Britney’s conservator and additional commissions from her career earnings.[18] The conservatorship also eliminated Britney’s autonomy in deciding her career path and financial choices. Most notably, the conservatorship also barred Britney from freedoms like getting remarried, having more children, or hiring her own legal counsel.[19]

As early as 2009, fan websites began speaking out against Britney’s conservatorship.[20] They believed that Britney’s continued work throughout her conservatorship proved that she was not legally incapacitated to the point of being unable to make any decisions about her life.[21] Fans also noticed that Britney was speaking out against the conservatorship and wanted to help.[22] Although the #FreeBritney movement does not have one pinpointed starter, it is entirely fan led.[23] Through podcasts, demonstrations outside court hearings, publishing court documents, and a social media frenzy, these fans brought attention to the violation of basic rights through Britney’s conservatorship.[24] This fan attention eventually led to a New York Times documentary on the subject, countless exposés and news articles, and even more public support in 2021.[25] Consequently, this growing pressure from social media helped terminate Britney’s conservatorship on November 12, 2021.[26]

The #FreeBritney movement has also sparked public concerns over the ethics of conservatorships. Zoe Brennan-Krohn, an American Civil Liberties Union’s disability rights lawyer, spoke out against conservatorships in stating, “We don’t know how long they’ve been there in them. We don’t know whether they want to be there. We don’t know why they’re there. We don’t know whether they have their own lawyers.”[27] In response to such concerns brought forward by the #FreeBritney movement, Congress members have spoken out, including Ted Cruz, Seth Moulton, and Elizabeth Warren.[28] Additionally, a bipartisan bill entitled the Freedom and Right to Emancipate from Exploitation Act (“FREE Act”) was introduced.[29] The FREE Act would “allow a person under a legal… conservatorship the right to petition the court to have their court-appointed [conservator] replaced with a public [conservator].”[30]

The #FreeBritney movement has made not only Britney’s voice, but the public’s voices heard. It remains a pivotal social media movement that has come to stand for more than a pop star. The #Free Britney movement stands for the human rights of all those in a conservatorship, and it is evident that their call for change impacted the law. “The cumulative voices of a community are powerful for shaping policy… #FreeBritney shows how people can join together and use their voices to enact change.”[31]

 

 

[1] Complete Guide to Conservatorship, Trust & Will, https://trustandwill.com/learn/what-is-conservatorship [https://perma.cc/9XTZ-W4LS] (last updated 2021).

[2] Free Britney! What Is a Conservatorship?, The Legal Examiner (Aug. 25, 2021) https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/free-britney-what-is-a-conservatorship/ [https://perma.cc/HRA4-MHXM].

[3] E.g., Conservatorship Timeline How Did We Get Here?, FREEBRITNEY.ARMY, https://www.freebritney.army/timeline [https://perma.cc/RP6V-C29X], (last visited Jan. 19, 2022) [hereinafter FreeBritney].

[4] E.g., Id.

[5] See Aishvarya Kavi, Push to ‘Free Britney’ Gains Steam on Capitol Hill, NY Times (July 15, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/us/politics/britney-spears.html [https://perma.cc/N6S8-BBNU] (last updated Nov. 12, 2021).

[6] Conservatorship, law.cornell.edu, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conservatorship#:~:text=A%20conservatorship%20is%20the%20appointment,referred%20to%20as%20%E2%80%9Cconservatee.%E2%80%9D [https://perma.cc/HRQ9-YVM7] (last visited Jan. 19, 2022).

[7] Eric Reed, What Is a Conservatorship, and How Does It Work?, smartasset (July 1, 2021), https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/what-is-conservatorship [https://perma.cc/9HYW-GNUL].

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] FreeBritney, supra note 1.

[13] See Id.

[14] Id.

[15] See Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Joe Coscarelli & Julia Jacobs, Judge Ends Conservatorship Overseeing Britney Spears’s Life and Finances, NY Times (Nov. 12, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/arts/music/britney-spears-conservatorship-ends.html [https://perma.cc/V89G-APUB] (last updated Nov. 15, 2021).

[18] Id.

[19] See Britney Spears: Singer’s conservatorship case explained, BBC News (Nov. 12, 2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53494405 [https://perma.cc/754T-J6L7]; Coscarelli & Jacobs, supra note 14.

[20] FreeBritney, supra note 1.

[21] See The history behind the ‘Free Britney’ movement, Spectrum 1 News (Sept. 23, 2021, 4:00 PM), https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/la-times-today/2021/09/23/the-history-behind-the–free-britney–movement [https://perma.cc/R5NB-CJJN].

[22] Coscarelli & Jacobs, supra note 14; See Blake Morgan, What The #FreeBritney Movement Teaches About The Power of Community, Forbes (Sept. 7, 2021, 6:07 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2021/09/07/what-the-freebritney-movement-teaches-about-the-power-of-community/?sh=40cbd1e43fae [https://perma.cc/S8SM-3CNY].

[23] See Dani Anguiano, The #FreeBritney movement finds its moment: ‘All the hard work was worth it’, The Guardian (Nov. 14, 2021, 4:00 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/nov/14/freebritney-movement-britney-spears-conservatorship [https://perma.cc/8R2X-DKD6].

[24] Id.

[25] See FreeBritney, supra note 1.

[26] See Coscarelli & Jacobs, supra note 14.

[27] Kavi, supra note 3.

[28] Id.

[29] Bianca Betancourt, Why Longtime Britney Spears Fans Are Demanding to #FreeBritney, Harper’s Bazaar (Nov. 12, 2021, 5:39 PM) https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a34113034/why-longtime-britney-spears-fans-are-demanding-to-freebritney/ [https://perma.cc/TL57-QNCF].

[30] Id.

[31] Morgan, supra note 19.

Image Source: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/free-britney-movement-freebritney

By: Nate Gilmore

 

Fentanyl overdoses are now the leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 18-45.[1] It was tied to nearly 64 percent of all drug fatalities in 2021, nearly doubling from 2020.[2] During this time, fentanyl overdoses have killed more people than car accidents, gun violence, breast cancer, and suicide.[3] It is not a political debate; it is an infestation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated over 11000 pounds of fentanyl coming over America’s southern border in 2021, almost three times greater than the year prior.[4] Immediate action must be taken to reduce the risk of these overdoses.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid commonly added to other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.[5] Deadly fentanyl levels mixed into these drugs cannot be detected by sight, taste, or touch.[6] Fentanyl test strips are inexpensive and are seen as one of the only ways to effectively determine if fentanyl is present.[7] With such a cheap and effective way to help lower the death tows rising, why are these strips not offered in stores across the country? The main problem is that these testing strips are only legal in a few states.[8] In states such as Florida, however, they are considered “drug paraphernalia,” where possession is a first-degree misdemeanor.[9] The potential life-saving strip could land you up to a year in prison.[10]

Things are looking up, however, in the sunshine state. This month, Florida State Representative Andrew Learned and State Senator Sevrin Jones have filed identical bills in the Florida House and Senate that would decriminalize fentanyl test strips.[11] Drug paraphernalia is currently defined as “all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, transporting, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance. . . .”[12] “Testing” is to be removed from the definition, and the bills would also decriminalize drug testing equipment such as fentanyl test strips.[13] Passage of these bills would be a massive step forward in increasing the availability of fentanyl test strips across the state and hopefully help stall overdose rates. Opponents of fentanyl test strips say that this approach encourages illegal drug use, as it is not requiring that someone stops taking drugs.[14] While this is a valid claim, the staggering fentanyl overdose rates over the last few years show that immediate action should be taken in an attempt to lower these rates, and the research on fentanyl test strips shows how efficient it can be.[15]

Fentanyl has crossed over our borders and poisoned this great country from within. With overdose rates increasing every year, U.S. citizens should be outraged and demand immediate legislative action. Legalizing fentanyl test strips would help identify fentanyl in a substance and will help reduce the risk of overdose, saving the lives of struggling addicted citizens.[16]

 

[1] Dan Grossman, Fentanyl is the Leading Cause of Death in Americans Ages 18-45, The Denver Channel (Jan. 04, 2020, 7:28 PM), https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/fentanyl-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-americans-ages-18-45.

[2] Deidre McPhillips, Drug Overdose Deaths Top 100,000 Annually for the First Time, Driven by Fentanyl, CDC Data Show, CNN Health (Nov. 17, 2021, 12:27 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/health/drug-overdose-deaths-record-high/index.html.

[3] Adam Shaw & Andrew Mark Miller, Fentanyl Overdoses Become No. 1 Cause of Deaths Among US Adults, Ages 18-45: ‘A National Emergency’, Fox 10 Phoenix (Dec. 16, 2021), https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/fentanyl-overdoses-become-no-1-cause-of-death-among-us-adults-ages-18-45-a-national-emergency.

[4] See id.

[5] The Facts About Fentanyl, CDC (Nov. 2, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/stopoverdose/fentanyl/index.html.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, Addiction Resource (Jan. 13, 2022), https://www.addictionresource.net/blog/fentanyl-test-strips/ (stating that in Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., and Wyoming, fentanyl test strips are legal or decriminalized).

[9] Fla. Stat. § 893.147.

[10] Fla. Stat. § 775.082.

[11] McKenna Schueler, Florida Lawmakers File Legislation to Decriminalize Fentanyl Test Strips, WMNF (Jan. 7, 2022), https://www.wmnf.org/florida-lawmakers-file-legislation-decriminalize-fentanyl-test-strips/.

[12] Fla. Stat. § 893.145.

[13] Schueler, supra note 11.

[14] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, supra note 8.

[15] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, supra note 8.

[16] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, supra note 8.

 

Image Source: https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-01-18/fentanyl

By: Drew Apperson

 

The U.S. Copyright Office recently provided notice that it is considering a significant antipiracy step—the development of “technical measures” (i.e., content-recognition software) that will identify or protect copyrighted works online.[1] These measures have traditionally been implemented via private collaborations among willing stakeholders, such as online service providers and rightsholders. The Office’s plan, however, is to address major issues with the existing measures, primarily inclusivity—which stakeholders must collaborate on the front-end development.[2] The Office explained that existing measures’ “strictly voluntary nature presents inherent limitations. The absence of comprehensive coverage and the exclusion of certain stakeholder interests during the development stages could hinder a measure’s sustainable success.” [3]

One of the Office’s examples of existing measures is YouTube’s Content ID,[4] which blocks millions of allegedly infringing videos each year.[5] Content ID is a “matching system that automatically identifies content that may be infringing . . . . [by scanning it] against a database of files submitted by copyright owners.”^[6] The measure automatically blocks matched content from being shared on the site, notifies the uploader of their alleged infringement, and provides several options to the rightsholder: (1) block the content outright, (2) permit the content and track its viewer statistics, or (3) permit the content and receive royalties from advertisements displayed to the content’s viewers.^[7] The exact amount of content that Content ID requires for a match is unknown, but possibly a single image or just a few seconds of audio may suffice.^[8]

Although Content ID’s match precision and threshold may be beneficial for existing rightsholders in recognizing potentially infringing works, Content ID is known to be so effective that some argue the measure deters, if not prevents, fair use by potential rightsholders, or content creators.^[9] One of the Office’s considerations is how this affects small, lesser-represented content creators.[10] The Office addressed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp,[11] where a homemade video of a small child dancing was automatically flagged because its background music matched a song in Content ID’s database.[12] The Office suggested that Content ID’s precision and threshold, as well as its lack of human input, resulted from insufficient stakeholder collaboration during front-end development.[13]

The Office noted that a “key feature of any future voluntary measure should . . . involve cooperation among rightsholder organizations, all sizes of [online service providers], individual creators, and users.”[14] The Copyright Office is therefore hosting consultations consisting of one plenary session in February, followed by a series of “smaller, industry-sector specific sessions” throughout the Spring.[15] The Office has provided questions for public comment, such as whether there is even a role for the government to play, and if so, how to accomplish it. Several questions are explicitly intended for specific stakeholders: rightsholders, online service providers, or users of those online services.[16] The questions are fairly broad and encourage widespread participation, and for good reason – there are a lot of stakeholders. YouTube alone provides localized versions of its site to over 100 countries[17] and accounts for an estimated 2.2 billion users worldwide, including approximately 204 million in the U.S.[18] Accordingly, “the Office also emphasized the importance of flexibility, accountability, and comprehensive reporting.”[19]

By Summer 2022, the Copyright Office should have a clearer prediction of whether it can address the extensive concerns and develop a successful, comprehensive measure.

 

[1] Technical Measures: Public Consultations, 86 Fed. Reg. 72,638 (Dec. 22, 2021).

[2] Id. at 72,639.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5]  See Number of Videos Removed from YouTube Worldwide from 4th Quarter 2017 to 3rd Quarter 2021, Statista (Dec. 7, 2021), https://www.statista.com/statistics/1132890/number-removed-youtube-videos-worldwide.

[6] Overview of Copyright Management Tools: Content ID, YouTube: Help Center (last visited Dec. 30, 2021), https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9245819?hl=en&ref_topic=9282364#zippy=%2Ccontent-id.

[7] Id.

[8] Katherine Trendacosta, Unfiltered: How YouTube’s Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online.

[9] Id.

[10] U.S. Copyright Office, Section 512 of Title 17, 150–52 (2020), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/section-512-full-report.pdf.

[11] Id.

[12] See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, 1154 (9th Cir. 2015).

[13] U.S. Copyright Office, Section 512 of Title 17 27–47 (2020), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/section-512-full-report.pdf.

[14] Technical Measures: Public Consultations, 86 Fed. Reg. 72,638, 72,639.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 72,640.

[17] YouTube for Press, YouTube (last visited Dec. 30, 2021), https://blog.youtube/press.

[18] Number of YouTube Viewers Worldwide, Statista (Aug. 31, 2021), https://www.statista.com/statistics/805656/number-youtube-viewers-worldwide; Online Video Entertainment, Statista (last visited Dec. 30, 2021), https://www.statista.com/markets/424/topic/542/online-video-entertainment/#overview; YouTube Users in the United States, Statista (July 20, 2021), https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1147203/youtube-users-in-the-united-states.

[19] Technical Measures: Public Consultations, 86 Fed. Reg. 72,638, 72,639.