Amazon.com Widgets

Singer Chris Brown was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. Should he still be allowed to perform?

  • Yes, learn from your mistakes and let it go

    Chris Brown has a lot of talent. What he doesn't have is common sense and intelligence. If there's anyone who shouldn't possess a firearm, it's him. But having a hothead gangster persona is more important than being a good guy and staying out of jail. A bling party with diamond encrusted bling? Sad!

  • He should not.

    How many times has Chris Brown been arrested now? Teenagers and even kids these days listen to all kinds of music, even Brown's and he's not the kind of person a child should look up to. Chris Brown needs to get his act right, he needs to show remorse and only then should he be allowed to perform in public.

  • A resounding yes for continuing to perform

    Words such as suspicion, assault and alleged altercation are all insufficient reasoning to effect any limitations on any one. The only thing that I feel could be a basis here for limitations would be the fact is that Mr. Brown peacefully emerged from his house after the hours-long standoff with police. This fact lends itself to exploration of police-action involvement upon a persons' rights, to which I am not informed enough to judge.

  • No, Chris Brown should not be allowed to perform.

    No, Chris Brown should not be allowed to perform. Celebrities are just like normal people - they are not above the law. They have normal jobs just like everyone else, but their jobs just require a big audience watching them. If any normal person were arrested, they would not be allowed to work, so Chris Brown shouldn't be allowed either.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.