I would change the down vote system. I do not believe there is any need what-so-ever for blind down vote accounts. What I mean by that is no ability to reciprocate against a down vote because they have only participated on the Hive Block Chain in a negative way by down votes only with no post no comments that can be down voted.
I also do not think a content creator should take a possible reputation hit because some one disagreed with the amount his/her/its post received. The down vote if for reward dispute should be against the top post rewarder. They should take the rep-loss and future monetary loss by having their curation reward lowered by the amount of the received down vote, and the amount of damage to the person reputation. This would put the issue of excessive rewards where it belongs on the person/people/accounts that up voted the post whether it is an individual or a curation account.
If people disagree with the individual/account that issued the down vote for rewards, then they would be able to down vote that individual/account and choose the abusive label for them and they would take the full brunt of the peoples wrath. After time this would solve the petty down voting, and the excessive up voting of post.
If the rep system worked well, I think this would be a decent approach and you are right, people should be able to post whatever shit they want, but getting rewarded/unrewarded on it is up o the community. It would be interesting to not only take reputation away from poor curation, but have some economic incentive also. If the reputation system actually worked, it could be used to give some kind of small multiplier affect to voting - this way, the "best" accounts would benefit from their past activities, not just their staked activities.