Guest Author - Sylvia Cochran
Just when you thought that the Britney saga could not get any more convoluted, finally the magic term “civil rights” is interjected!
At issue is daddy’s takeover of young Ms. Spears’ fiscal affairs and it is left to the battle pawns (say lawyers) to duke it out. The newest lawyer participating in the feeding frenzy that is Ms. Spears’ oh so public life is Jon Eardley, Esq. In an eloquent brief that was anything but, he asserted that the rules of papa’s conservatorship are too strict and reminiscent of the lack of freedom experienced by Guantanamo Bay detainees.
While it is unclear what exactly Mr. Eardley is referring to – thus far there have been no reports of Ms. Spears’ being water-boarded or kept away from legal counsel – it appears that he may be arguing that the restrictions imposed on her with regard to her contacts might be the problem.
Even the shallowest of observers will find that Mr. Eardley is barking up the wrong tree – albeit at the behest of young Ms. Spears. Both would be wiser and better served to allege civil rights violation by the scores of paparazzi that are following her every move and make it next to impossible for the young woman to lead a life that is even somewhat normal.
Considering her bout of recent hospitalizations, it is worth arguing that the violation of civil rights is taking place with respect to her privacy and that the consistent ferreting out of private information is akin to illegal searches and seizures. Even though Mr. Spears is most likely not on his daughter’s favorite five, he is doing his level best to protect the spoiled star from self destructing in the mode so many young celebrities have done before her and are currently doing.
I strongly urge Mr. Eardley to let go of his Guantanamo Bay rhetoric (come on!) and to be an advocate for his client rather than a hired gun. Advocating for his client, by definition, will require him to take an interest in her wellbeing rather than doing what he is paid to do, although ideally the two will coincide.
To this end it is wise to assert civil rights violation against the media outlets that buy telescope lens photos shot by peeping toms in the hopes of stellar remuneration. In the same vein, it would be appropriate to say the same with respect to the tabloids that appear to think of Ms. Spears as a moneymaker rather than a human being. And lest in future articles she be compared to a modern day Joseph Merrick, Mr. Eardley may wish to speed up a bit, because Ms. Spears shows no signs of slowing down.