Originally Posted by Kooli
Yet a lot of people on this thread jumped in to vehemently defend Chris Brown without knowing any of the facts (i.e. how bad the beating was, what his 'apology' consisted of, what his sentence consisted of, how much or little he has demonstrated remorse since the attack, what exactly the Grammies people said about inviting him back), and when they learned the facts they subsequently modified their position to some extent. So what prompted people to automatically defend him and label my response as extreme without being absolutely sure what happened? I'm really curious where that response comes from...
Just on this point, as I feel I may be one of the people in mind when you posted it.
I didn't vehemently defend Chris Brown. I did at the time know the 'facts' so when I posted first I was posting on memory. Having watched some videos I've changed my viewpoint on his apology.
However, based on the attack and sentencing, I still believe he should be allowed perform. If he was to act this way again I wouldn't be supportive of him at all but you cannot stop someone from working because of one incident.
It was a horrific attack, I'm not going to gloss over that, but he's young and deserves the chance to work. I wouldn't stop him from getting a job in an office, or MacDonalds, or a car dealership etc, so don't see why he should get a job singing.
I still think you may be missing the point people have about not supporting his attack, simply supporting his right to move on from it and work uninterrupted.