Your excessive use of caps and bold italics to dominate the discussion with your viewpoint is worthy of a downvote.  Applied.

(Now that you've muted me:  Your use of the tools was inappropriate in this case.  Your viewpoint had nothing to do with the downvote. A comment isn't based on who can use font styling the best. If your comment in text isn't enough to get appreciation, it isn't who screams the loudest visually, that's not how this platform works).

I merely use the tools at my disposal to get a point out.  You're free to find a single sentence in bold to be excessive, but I question that motivation. I don't see any caps that you speak of.

Is it wrong to present people the reality of the situation?  
I'm pretty sure the Steemit blockchain is free.

nelson mandela was a convicted criminal? morality and law are completely separate. 

Also the way you wrote the comment makes you an absolute knob. I consume marijuana because of a form of autism. I am a criminal also. I am a good human being though! would never hurt an innocent party. BIG difference between what is moral and what is legal. A good example would be the fact if you gave a black person your bus seat in america in the 20's you would be a criminal. Sit down and shut the fuck up. I never talk to people like this on here but some levels of dumb fuckery need to be treated mutually. Also you can write as if you posses some higher level of knowledge but in reality all you are is a word smith. Nothing more. Intelligence is not defined by how well you write. In fact intelligence is based on understanding and rational thinking. Both of which, clearly you lack. What you said is personally insulting to me because i have a choice. Marijuana or ritalin. I'd rather take the plant i grow rather than the chemical poison they hand out to every energetic 9 year old. 

In the U.K if you catch someone sexually abusing your child and you take their life you go to prison for manslaughter. What is moral is not legal and what is legal is not moral. Don't be so insulting to those persecuted .

Yes he IS a convicted criminal, and no we DON'T care. I hope the next thing you ask yourself is 'why' doesn't anyone care? Perhaps we're all morally bankrupt? Or perhaps we don't judge people by their interactions with the U.S governments? Or perhaps instead of slinging mud and character attacks, we took the time to read and find out why this man had his liberty taken away, some would say STOLEN. Personally I'm proud Charlie got through his problems and proud that Steemit can count him amongst its ever growing family.

@intelliguy

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.

@egjoshslim

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 :)

@cryptosi

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'.

Alright @spookypooky and please correct me if I'm wrong but money laundering is the act of transferring the proceeds of a criminal activity through legal entities in order to make it appear to be legally obtained yeah? The moral reasoning behind it is that one should not benefit from the proceeds of crime and legally there is the issue of taxation. So let's say I go to a chocolate factory and purchase 1000 bars of chocolate and then go and swap those chocolate bars for drugs and let's also assume that the dealer sells the chocolate bars to a shop in order to recoup their cash. At this point their are four parties involved only two have knowingly committed a crime but it looks like you would hold all four responsible I mean all parties except the user have made a profit from crime. If you are with what I've said then perhaps you should concede some of that moral high ground because I guarantee you have at some point in your life been involved in that chain, it you fix a criminals car that is later used in a robbery are you complicit in the crime?

And secondly as you put Charlie on blast according to Reuters "Shrem, the former vice chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation, will plead guilty next Thursday in New York federal court to unlicensed money transmission." something both the factory owner and shop keeper would be guilty of no? Do you want Bitcoin and other crypto currencies regulated because without regulation there is no "unlicensed money transmission"?

And finally yes it looks like Charlie only posted to say hello like the tag says I don't think we all need to use Steem to talk about Steem unlike the multitude of Steem quick money marketing gurus I assume you think you are one of having looked at your posts

I wouldn't hold a chocolate factory owner or store owner to the same standards as an exchange operator due to their inherently different natures and business niches. If a chocolate factory owner was lax on safety regulations, I would indeed hold that against them.

If you operate an exchange that clears out millions, there's no excuses for 'not knowing or noticing' . That's negligence. This doesn't change anything about the person or their character, they might be great guys for all I know, they might be more charitable and amicable than many a 'law abiding citizen', me included. But that doesn't change the facts and the results of aforementioned practices. 

Money laundering and bitcoin related 'crimes' of similar nature may be victimless, but they're not free of impact. Money laundering enables criminals to grab their proceeds, to have their cake and eat it too, which <em>does</em> have the potential for tremendously negative chain reactions and domino effects. That's why it's such a highly contested topic (and it's definitely not much better in many fiat institutions that get implicated in cases of this nature, that doesn't make it right, it just makes both alternatives wrong).