I've never muted you, in fact, I upvoted you. I may disagree with you, but our discussion is still one worth having. It's a shame the reply system is not sufficient in this case. I still don't feel that it's inappropriate - if it wasn't an intended function of the platform it would not be explicitly coded in. I respect you wanting to disagree, though. If you and many others feel that it should be removed, open a topic about it on the Steemit github.
I'm sorry you have to deal with autism, I'm sure that's not easy. I do feel that you're taking this very personal and taking it out on me, though. I'm pretty sure one of the Steemit selling points are it's decentralisation on the blockchain, so I find it amusing that you would explicitly downvote me when part of my discussion disagrees with your views and feelings. Seems similar to those 'laws' you harp against - in reverse :)
You're free to take a stance on this however you wish, but making assumptions about to extent or lack of my knowledge doesn't seem appropriate. If my sarcastic jab at the monetary reward and loaded PR implications came off as character attacks and mud then I apologize. As mentioned above, I am amused that you'd use the censorship function in a case like this though, related to somebody going to jail over a supposed 'victimless crime'.
RE: Charlie Shrem Is Now On Steemit!