#FREEKESHA

Fans invade privacy for the benefit of the celebrity.

Content Warning: non-graphic mentions of rape, body shaming, and disordered eating.

Between the years of 2014 and 2016, Kesha publicly fought to be released from her contracts with mega-producer Dr. Luke and his label’s parent company, Sony Music Entertainment. Dr. Luke had allegedly subjected Kesha as well as other celebrities such as Katy Perry to sexual abuse. Claims of which he, as well as Perry, denied. Under the terms of Kesha’s recording deal with Dr. Luke’s production company, Kasz Money Inc., Dr. Luke is entitled to produce at least six songs per studio release through her sixth album (Rogers, 2016). The lawsuit, in part, accredits Dr. Luke for professional misconduct and intimidation.

In one instance, Dr. Luke demanded she record lyrics written by will.i.am which included calling a girl a ‘heffer’. Kesha refused on account of the pain surrounding her history of eating disorders, which she also accredits to Dr. Luke’s abuse. In “a rage,” Dr. Luke allegedly told the singer, “that he could manipulate [her] voice to say whatever he wanted in his computer” (Rogers, 2016). Accounts like this stick out to fans on a greater scale than the specifics of the court case as, “personal information benefits from a deeper cognitive processing compared with professional information” (Barrenda-Ángeles 2019). Animals, Kesha's fans, believe her personal account because they know her more intimately than court jargon; Kesha’s prior forfeit of privacy makes her stories the truth to Animals.

At the time of the lawsuit, Kesha had released two of the obligated six records, one of which reaching platinum-plus success. Kesha turning to litigation to release herself from Dr. Luke’s recording deal on accounts of abuse was the first of its kind and “ultra-aggressive” according to attorney Larry Iser. “Dr. Luke’s strategy makes Kesha’s abuse allegations front and center in a defamation case which turns on: ‘what’s true?’” (Gardner, 2014). In short: the baggage of a lawsuit looks bad on all parties. Despite this, there was an outpouring of support for Kesha, with #FreeKesha trending among even other huge celebrities such as Lady Gaga and Kelly Clarkson. This compounded the number of eyes on the case because the fascination of stars is rooted in “a fascination with [their] life outside of role[s] on screen… ‘the private lives of the stars emerged as a new site of knowledge and truth’” (Peterson, p. 64). The media was responsive to the private life of Kesha and took heed to call mass attention to the lawsuit. Just shy of the #MeToo movement, and echoing again today in the resurgence of #FreeBritney, many claimed that the case was a public example of victim-blaming, disbelief, and public shaming (Bates, 2016). One of the first of its kind, at that.

Framing Britney Spears's origin of #FREEBRITNEY illustrates how a celebrity's previous forfeit of privacy leads fans

to believe they know them. This phantasmal relationship validates public action when they see fit.

The case of Kesha v. Dr. Luke was ultimately dismissed by the New York Supreme Court. Judge Jennifer G. Schecter ruled that Dr. Luke is “not well-known enough to be considered a ‘public figure,’” giving him greater leeway to countersue for irreversible character defamation (Sisario, 2020). Dr. Luke is not a celebrity. Interestingly enough, he has five Grammy nominations including the 2021 Record of the Year for "Say So" (under the pseudonym Tyson Trax).

Later, in 2018, a text conversation between Kesha and Lady Gaga from the year of the case surfaced on Reddit. The conversation is a huge invasion of privacy, but it still remains online. Gaga later responded to the leak on Twitter assuring that she and Katy were good friends and “have grown up in the industry together”. Katy interacted with the tweet with a similar sentiment. Again, I recommend briefing through the responses.

Were Animals right to publicize a private text conversation utilized in court?

Should Kesha’s public suffering outweigh the absolutism of private contractual obligation? Were her conversations with Lady Gaga entitled to privacy, or was the leak a noble attempt of supporting her? Especially considering Kesha’s close bond with her fans, greater self-exposure could act as a safety net during the most publically tumultuous period of her career. Since Kesha had previously developed an authentic persona to portray to Animals, they felt responsible to pursue the truth see the artist they idolize through the case (Valentinsson, p. 715). They, allegedly, “suspected that something was off-kilter in their dynamic long before the court case,” then aimed to raise money to buy her out of the contract during the trials (Bruton, 2020). Being perceived as authentic later provided Kesha the springboard to bounce back into the industry with her 2017 smash-hit “Praying”. To some, Animals were not violating Kesha’s privacy since she had previously, willingly opened a more personal relationship to them evoking the Streisand Effect. In the past, Kesha would privately “asks about their parents” –so they pursued private, potentially damning evidence in return (Bruton, 2020). To fans on a mission, the pursuit of truth holds no limits.

The release of this private conversation puts Kesha in a uniquely challenging position. If Kesha were to speak out against her fans for releasing personal texts between her and Gaga, she would be jeopardizing both that oath of her private lawsuit and the authentic relationships she publically worked to build with her fans.