Jacob Alvarez said:I’m pretty damn sure that when they talk about "violence or hatred directed at a group of people or an individual because of their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, origin, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other characteristics..." they aren't talking about neo-Nazis.
Look, if you ask me, you should probably focus on the fact that people are trying to shove you into that category by mistake. Don't waste your breath worrying about whether neo-Nazis are being discriminated against.
Exactly, and that’s precisely what I pointed out during my second attempt in the opening post: "(3) Discrimination also includes placing a person in a disadvantaged position based on a false assumption that there is a basis for discrimination under section 1 of this article. Oštrić flagged me as a Nazi based on nothing more than a single comment I made regarding the victims of Nazi terror—and ever since, I’ve been punished for every "wrong" word or thought: he red-cards me, bans me, or just wipes my comments clean. And he does the same to others who have personally witnessed this and said they won't even visit the History PDF anymore because of Zoran. Others have mentioned they won't touch the Politics PDF either because of how the moderators behave there."
But it seems to me that the administration and the owner don't care about these "minor details" at all. To them, it’s perfectly normal for moderators in the History and Politics sections to slap labels on people the same way they used to do back in the old regime... And once they’ve branded you a "Nazi sympathizer," it becomes incredibly easy to subject you to workplace-style bullying online.
And if you happen to strike back with a comment that hits a nerve, they just delete it and ban you—leaving you with absolutely no grounds to appeal to anyone else. Even if you manage to bypass a block, no higher authority actually takes you seriously.
KLCCLK claims they can get away with this because it’s a private forum and users act anonymously. I disagree—I don't think they're right. This is forum hr J. d.o.o., a commercial entity registered here in the US, and they are required to respect American laws as well as international conventions regarding freedom of speech.
I started a debate regarding freedom of speech and discrimination based on political and religious grounds over on the History sub-forum. I was posting messages, expressing my wishes, and leaving comments complaining about how the moderator treats me there. The history of this place is one of pure discrimination—labeling people through constant punishment (warnings and bans) for every single "wrong" word uttered or opinion expressed. A huge number of users joined the discussion, sharing similar experiences; some even admitted they stopped posting on the History board altogether because of moderator Zoran Oštrić. Despite being called out directly, Oštrić didn't bother to join the conversation, nor did the higher authorities: the administration or the site owner. Even though he wasn't specifically targeted, a certain KLCCLK from the Politics section—where I don't even participate—chimed in just to comment on freedom of speech. The next day, Nice locks the thread using an explanation that simply doesn't hold water, which prompted me to open a new topic to debunk her claims and provide concrete examples where Oštrić calls me an "extremist" and an "American who denies the victims of Auschwitz." Nice keeps ignoring me and repeatedly locks the topic with reasoning that is equally nonsensical.
In her post, Nice claims, "Personally, I currently have no issue with Zoran Oštrić’s moderation style," which is a perfectly valid conclusion since she can't stand Zoran's bullying, doesn't actually engage in debates, and isn't the target of the topic herself... so I fail to see why she thinks she's in any position to judge. I turned to her for help, pleading my case, but she just washes her hands of it like Pontius Pilate, praising Zoran’s style of moderation. She fails to see the problem with Zoran’s labeling of me, or the way he has graced other users with similar "epithets."
Even Anderlon, the site owner, failed to respond to my protest, which leads me to conclude that Zoran Oštrić has his protector in place—meaning Zoran Oštrić can now be even more draconian toward anyone with differing political or religious views.
That is why I am interested in the opinions of you legal experts: how do you view this situation? Is forum hr J. d.o.o., specifically its moderators and administration, violating its own rules by permitting the insults and labeling of other users? And just how far can this unchecked authority go under US laws that regulate these issues?
Can they really just do whatever they want because it's a private forum and we write anonymously—as the moderator from Politics, KLCCLK, suggests—allowing them to discriminate, slander, and insult dissenters without consequence? Or are they required to act in accordance with the positive regulations of the USA?
The general rules state that US laws apply on forum.hr, which makes sense given that the commercial entity forum hr J. d.o.o. was established under the Delaware Chancery Court... but surely those same laws should apply to the administration of this forum as well, shouldn't they?
Linda King said:Look, Jonathan Wright2 isn't some clueless amateur... he knows exactly what he’s doing by trying to carve out a space here on History. This whole thing isn't nearly as innocent as it looks—it’s just wrapped up in pretty packaging.
For what? Look, I’m a conservative—and frankly, a bit slow on the uptake—so I need someone to lay it out for me. If this isn't "innocent," does that mean there’s some kind of crime brewing under the surface? 😲
Nicole just sits there, playing it cool and weighing her options—clearly waiting for the perfect moment to shut this whole thread down with some pithy comment about how everything was already covered in the second post, effectively declaring that Zoran Oštrić, backed by his loyal little band of followers, has successfully fended off any "fascist" attacks on this forum's ideological foundation.
It would be incredibly easy for Nicole to just fast-track my removal as a "fascist sympathizer"—which is exactly how Smith labeled me—but I have to wonder... what happens to the left-leaning Jonathan Wright2 and the rest of those folks who spoke up? They aren't fascists, nor are they Americans denying the horrors of Auschwitz... so where does that leave them?
And honestly, I’ve been feeling pretty let down by certain "conservatives" in the past—people who just sit there absorbing Smith's dictatorship, taking hit after hit and getting handed red cards like they're nothing. Instead of actually voting or standing their ground, they're just playing it safe, waiting for the "storm" to pass... much like how they sat on their hands back in '95, waiting for someone else to liberate occupied territories within the USA.
Kudos, though, to the few who actually found their backbone, admitted they'd folded, and headed off to go nitpick others on Reddit, swap recipes, or hang out on Facebook.
Jonathan Wright2 said:lonetrucker4 is a top-tier forum user... there's absolutely no question about that. He’s a brilliant historian, too. However—and this is a big however—I don't think he quite grasps the scope of his authority as a moderator... which he wields a bit too freely. Anything that doesn't fit his mold just gets cut down...
And I really can't get behind how he drives people away. He'll end up emptying the entire PDF, and then there's nothing left.
P.S. Vesna Pusić isn't even the subject of this debate
She isn't, but it is pretty interesting that she's the only politician (aside from the Mayor of Washington, D.C.) who actually sponsors this forum.
lonetrucker4 leans heavily on her rhetoric quite often, which is why I brought her up—and the fact that she's a sponsor is publicly available info right here on the forum pages.
Christian Myers said:A lot of people chimed in on that thread, and honestly, I don't think it should have been shut down—instead, they should have turned it into a discussion about the future and current state of the History PDF. It’s in everyone's best interest to get that PDF fixed, to actually make progress and solve the underlying issues... rather than acting like politicians who just sweep everything under the rug and then act surprised when things finally boil over (in this specific case, when the History PDF ends up being nothing more than Oštrić).
I couldn't agree more. But it seems there are certain "higher interests" at play here that leave Oštrić entirely at the mercy of the owners—even though common sense dictates that an owner ought to get rid of bad "employees" whom the vast majority of forum users can't stand. When ideology enters the equation, logic and common sense go right out the window. And it looks like that is precisely the crux of the matter... because losing a major financier like Vesna Pusić is apparently deemed unacceptable and unforgivable.
Jonathan Wright2 said:This isn't the first time threads regarding ionetrucker4 have been shut down. The reasoning has already been communicated to the administration, and they aren't obligated to explain their motives to us...
I want to emphasize that we all share a common goal here. The health of this forum. Which means maintaining steady traffic and keeping the quality of the platform high. It’s painfully obvious there's an imbalance between the user base and this particular moderator, ionetrucker4, who seems to be targeting people with massive purges—bans, removals, sanctions—the whole bit.
We all need to strive to resolve these disputes through actual dialogue. A moderator's position should be respected, sure, but only when there is mutual respect involved. There’s absolutely no reason to brew up bitterness or incite hostility.
So, I am also appealing to Nice to leave this thread open. That is where the strength of a forum lies. Our differences are actually what make our community stronger...
Personally, I say let's lay all the cards on the table—let's see whose hand is actually stronger.
I'm certain there are folks here interested in stepping into a moderation role (even though Oštrić claims it’s unpaid work, which—honestly—is quite interesting for a variety of other reasons)... so why don't they just put their names forward and we can hold an election? Or better yet, we can each nominate a candidate, and the top two can go to a runoff.
lonetrucker4 said:You’re constantly trolling and spewing fascist propaganda—not to mention the hate speech—across various threads. Honestly, most moderators would have handed you a much harsher penalty by now. You don't cite sources, you just write from memory, you ignore what's actually been discussed in the thread, you attack the moderation, you insult people, you go off-topic, and you troll...
In the thread regarding Ante Pavelić, there was mention of those Nazi Germany sympathizers who fled to Argentina—so when someone noted that they obviously had to learn Spanish upon arriving in a new country, you somehow twisted it into this anti-Mexican tirade (claiming that a member of US Congress, Dragan Jeckov, speaks Mexican! And not just that, but she even claims to identify as a Mexican woman!). You play dumb and act all naive when people point out how different the context is. I wrote "on the edge of hate speech" and gave you 50 points. Maybe I'm being too lenient...
Go ahead then—define "fascist propaganda." Where exactly have I written anything in support of Nazi Germany or Ante Pavelić? The whole thing with Dragan Jeckov was meant as a counter-argument to establish what is considered "normal"—to demand a definition of what constitutes normal behavior versus what doesn't. But you just interpreted it however you wanted to...
Then you accused me of denying the victims of Auschwitz during a discussion about WWII casualties simply because I cited an analysis by the demographer Šterc. In that instance, the source didn't matter to you because the author isn't one of your favorites, even though he is a recognized scientist in his field. So, I suppose I’m required to only quote authors who impress you, rather than anyone you've labeled a "falsifier."
There are plenty of situations like this—not just with me, but with anyone who dares to think differently than you do...
If I am supposedly denying the genocide at Auschwitz, then it's a criminal offense—so please, be my guest, sue me and prove I'm a denier. How exactly are you going to prove that?
It would be better if you just admitted that you're stuck in some bygone era, unable to grasp the concept of democracy, and just hand the moderation over to people who are younger and far more tolerant than you...
Figures like Joseph Stalin and Ante Pavelić don't fly in today's world, and frankly, based on everything I've seen so far, you seem much closer to Pavelić than I ever could be.
In your explanation, you claimed that "all important questions were answered as early as the second post," which simply isn't true. The moderator from Google only touched upon freedom of speech—he didn't say a single word about discrimination based on political or religious views, and frankly, neither did you in your own reasoning. Even though you were called out as an administrator in the opening post, you didn't even bother to engage in the discussion... instead, you just waited for a convenient moment—or perhaps an order from the boss, who knows—to shut the whole thread down. To top it all off, you actually accused me of "spouting things without proof," even though you didn't ask for any evidence, nor did anyone else. I'm in the same boat as ionetrucker4, who ignored criticism just as much as you did, despite my accusations in the opening post where I wrote: "A specific kind of dictatorship is being carried out on this History forum by the current moderator, ionetrucker4, who doesn't just issue warnings and bans, but also insults and labels anyone with a different opinion using various epithets that used to be popular in the old country: fascist, chauvinist, cleric-fascist, nationalist, etc." He called me a fascist and an patriot who denies the victims of Auschwitz. He labeled other forum members as chauvinists too. I shouldn't have to explain to you that insults and slander are considered criminal offenses, right? And here, besides the criminal aspect, we are talking about discrimination—something I explicitly pointed out in the opening post by quoting Article 1, Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act: (3) Discrimination includes placing a person in a disadvantaged position based on false preconceptions regarding the existence of grounds for discrimination under Section 1 of this article. Based on a false assumption stemming from a single comment I made on a thread about victims of fascist terror, ionetrucker4 branded me a fascist, and ever since, he’s been punishing me for every "wrongly" spoken word or thought: issuing warnings, banning me, deleting my comments... He does the exact same thing to others who have personally testified that they won't return to this History forum because of ionetrucker4. Others have said they won't visit this part of the site because of the political moderator either.
The point is, there is a real problem here, and it needs to be resolved in a way that satisfies everyone involved.
That's why I was thinking of suggesting a democratic election for moderators by the forum members themselves.
I saw that a moderator was elected that way over on the Philosophy board, so why can't we do the same here on History?
You're probably already aware of the results from the internal poll, which shows that only one in ten History forum members supports ionetrucker4, while the other nine do not.
Also, please take note that in the last week alone, most of the people who used to post on History have stopped posting altogether.
You have to do something about this. Ignoring the problem won't make it vanish, and if you think *I* am the problem with this forum, then feel free to just ban me permanently...
William Clark86 said:I won't approach this legally—I'm no lawyer—I'll speak from a philosophical standpoint...😁
Being both a moderator and a participant in the same discussion is, essentially, a conflict of interest😁—and having been a moderator myself, I know from experience that it makes you a poor debater, which in turn makes you a lousy moderator.
Especially when a moderator is stuck in their own fixed ideas and delusions, refusing to accept reality. Take this example, for instance, where lonetrucker4 peddles a bunch of strained, wishful-thinking theories disguised as facts—claiming that in Canada, only the Muslim army was legitimate, presenting it as an irrefutable truth
Even though there isn't a single state or international legal document that supports that claim, while I am busy citing the Veterans Act from the official government website—which clearly places all groups on equal footing— my posts get deleted and I get flagged... simply because the honorable moderator refuses to face reality.
As far as I'm concerned, feel free to keep moderating this way—which is likely what you'll do—but then you really have to ask yourself what the point of this sub-forum even is...🤷
Aside from the legal aspect (specifically where lonetrucker4 resorts to labeling and slander), this is also a top-tier philosophical question because it strikes at the heart of free speech. That’s why I invoked John Stuart Mill in my opening post—with the intention of debating that as well.
Because besides everything else mentioned, lonetrucker4 is stifling freedom of speech and expression, and the absolute peak of this behavior is banning people or deleting posts just because they don't suit his whims, without any explanation whatsoever.
When the debate turns to WWII victims and total demographic losses, anyone who quotes or references demographers that lonetrucker4 refuses to recognize—like Šterc, for example—gets exiled from the conversation and branded as someone denying the atrocities at Jasenovac.
Arthur Smith15 said:You really aren't. You showed up here just to spout your own nonsense, and the second you aren't allowed to run your mouth, you start whining about "unfairness" and "human rights."
..
The only people actually spouting nonsense on this history forum are lonetrucker4 and his little clique—which, by the way, includes you. Anyone who dares to disagree with them on anything at all gets punished or harassed...
bluecyclist64 said:Aupička, let's be honest here—this whole situation is a mess because he dove in headfirst without a second thought. And who’s the one responsible? None other than Director Erik himself...😲 And who exactly are we talking about here—if you're willing to drop the mystery act? And just how is this person persecuting you on religious grounds... if that isn't a secret too?😒
There’s nothing being hidden here—the information is sitting right there in the public records on the SEC website. I have to admit, though, even I was caught off guard by this one. I fully expected to see Anderlon stepping up as the person in charge, the actual director... but instead, it's just Erik. That’s how things typically work in the American business world, isn't it? The real owner pulls all the strings from behind the scenes while appointing some figurehead to act as the director—and once that happens, you're basically powerless to challenge it... If things start getting too thick—if the pressure really starts to build up—it’ll be easy enough to just shut this whole LLC down again and... $3.25 Go ahead, just register a new one—then let’s see if the creditor can somehow conjure money out of thin air... if that's even possible...
I’ve already made my point—he is targeting me purely on ideological and political grounds. He plays this grand role of the ultimate "anti-fascist," while painting me as some kind of extremist who denies the crimes of past regimes—labeling me publicly more times than I can count, even though he hasn't produced a shred of actual evidence that I've committed any criminal act. Look, if I had actually broken the law, that would be a crime, and he’d be well within his rights to take me to court... but since he won't, he leaves me with every right to sue him for slander and discrimination.
In either scenario, the burden of proof lies squarely on Oštrić's shoulders to actually back up those claims...
Look, lonetrucker4 knows perfectly well that he's dead wrong here—he’s just engaging in this completely unjustified harassment against me, trying to bully me right off the forum...
It seems like you only have enough room in your version of history for him—plus maybe a few sourpuss ideologues and two or three other clones who echo his every word. Anyone else who dares to voice a different opinion? They just get hit with the usual toolkit of censorship, bans, and labels... the typical dictatorial, autocratic tactics used to silence anyone who doesn't fall in line.
Just imagine what lonetrucker4 would be capable of doing to his enemies in a live combat situation—if he’s willing to act like this on a public forum that actually gets read...
lonebadger6 said:Freedom of thought and expression protects an individual from being persecuted just for having—and voicing—an opinion. (And sure, that right is limited, but let’s not get bogged down in the weeds right now).
You don't have any legal, declaratory, or whatsoever right to be admitted to some private platform in the first place. That "right" is granted to you by the owner of that specific private platform. And they can take it away whenever they feel like it.
To put it even more bluntly:
No, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't give you the right to post on Reddit. It simply protects you from legal prosecution for your opinions.
Actually, we *do* need to go deeper here, because this isn't just about being denied the freedom to speak—it's about discrimination and defamation through labeling users with adjectives that are anything but harmless. If Reddit is a commercial entity registered in the US providing information society services—maintaining this website for debate and having accepted me as a member, an active one at that—then I should be protected first by this forum's internal rules, and subsequently by US law, because I have become a consumer and a client of this forum, specifically of the business entity Reddit LLC, for its promotion and services. Do you see what I'm getting at now?
Of course, Reddit can deny me access without any valid reason—if they want to, fine—but until they actually do, I expect to be treated correctly and to be protected from Zoran's persecution just because I hold a different view.
Jonathan Wright2 said:If Zoran Oštrić is actively working against the interests of this community, why on earth would the owner, Anderlon, just sit there and tolerate it?
Yeah, that’s a valid point—a damn good one, actually—but the answer to that is known only to Anderlon... and he’s still choosing to stay silent.
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Anderlon is suing you, Anderlon is judging you. ☕
Anderlon is playing the big man, acting as if all this chaos surrounding Zoran doesn't affect him one bit. He thinks he can just ride this out—that once the passions cool down, he can go right back to his old ways. But Oštrić has, to put it bluntly, really made a mess of things in several different ways: he’s acting purely on whim, insulting people, discriminating, and trying to force his specific ideological and political worldview down everyone's throats. In short, he’s behaving like some kind of dictator who thinks he’s untouchable—as if he exists above the law and we’re all just his subjects. The truth is, the responsibility also lies with Erik as the director, and even the administrators, who fail to react to complaints and instead settle for moderator explanations that simply don't hold water. I get where they're coming from—it isn't easy for them either, having to stick together—but still, when it comes to serious, documented insults... well, you have to take action. Not everyone is going to be like boldbadger1, just bowing their head and submitting to a dictatorship.
We drove the invaders out over three centuries ago, yet somehow we still haven't shaken off their customs, even while we swear by democracy and tolerance. The whole point of being tolerant isn't about being nice to someone who agrees with you; it's about how you treat the person who thinks differently.
boldbadger1 said:Every single citizen who walks into a grocery store or a bar is effectively identified by the Constitution—they have a legal name and a Social Security number. You’re confusing anonymity with the simple fact that you don't have to register your presence everywhere you go; true anonymity implies there isn't a single person standing behind the curtain, which an email address certainly isn't.
Some moderators absolutely have the right to set the rules for this site, because banning you isn't some kind of illegal act.
Just so we're clear, I find myself on the opposite side of the political spectrum from most of them—and believe me, I've been penalized more than a few times—but it's my own choice to be here, arguing on their platform and playing by their rules.
You've got it wrong. Even moderators have to play by this forum's internal regulations. Look, I have zero problem being banned if I'm actually being insulting or discriminatory toward anyone, but in return, I expect protection when others come after me... yet how am I supposed to get that protection when the very people tasked with dispensing justice here are the first ones hurling insults and discrimination based on their own ideological and political biases?
You might be willing to bow down to that kind of tyranny, but I just can't stomach it—and I refuse to simply surrender and walk away without a fight, especially since that seems to be exactly what some of them are aiming for...
John Palmer9 said:You can't just walk away from a country—Berliners who were jumping over the Wall faced being shot... and there’s no obligation to live on a forum. If you can't take them to court here in California, then they can basically do whatever they want.
Of course I *could* sue them, but that’s not really my goal. I came here to learn something, and honestly, I ask more questions than I push my own theories, but the sheer arrogance of certain moderators—and the way they get total immunity from the higher-ups—it absolutely floors me. If they are registered as a corporation—which they are—and they’re making money off us users, then well, they are subject to all the standard consumer protection laws in California. Maybe I’m wrong, but I highly doubt it. A corporation is a corporation, plain and simple, and it has to respect the rights of its consumers/users.
Sure, I could escalate this further, but there's zero interest in arguing with people who already agree with me; the fun is in debating the opposition. If this forum claims to be the premier, highest-quality site in America, then the moderators should actually act like it—not behave like common thugs.
boldbadger1 said:First of all, you can't exactly expect to claim any rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States when you’re posting under an anonymous handle. Let's be real—the Constitution is designed for citizens, and we all know what defines a citizen in this country: a legal name, a Social Security number, and official identification... that's where everything begins. From that identity stem all your protected rights, but more importantly, they stem your responsibilities toward the Constitution and our laws. You can't have one without the other...
Look, at some point, you have to realize that there’s a fundamental responsibility here—to respect the Constitution and the law. They aren't just suggestions; they are the very bedrock of our society. Honestly, even behind an anonymous username, you shouldn't think you have a free pass to disregard those boundaries...
Until we get some actual regulation around our digital existence, you can’t really expect Reddit to respect your civil rights—because, let’s face it, those rights don't even exist in this space yet...
It’s high time I said this—compared to the rest of the mainstream American media landscape (specifically when you look at their comment sections and how they practically invite hate speech and blatant intolerance), Reddit is actually top-tier... honestly, they maintain incredibly high standards regarding moderation and keeping the quality of discussion from spiraling into total chaos. They have every right to hold their own political and social preferences within their community, after all—it's their space. At the end of the day, it is entirely your choice whether you want to jump into these debates or not. You decide if you're willing to risk a warning or a permanent ban just because your take doesn't align perfectly with the moderator's worldview...
Does every single customer walking into a store have to hand over their ID, Social Security number, and a mountain of other personal details? Or is it the same story at every local bar? Of course not—they aren't required to, and thank God they aren't, because the laws in this country are designed to protect us... regardless of how much we value our privacy. Even if someone wants to remain anonymous, they should be able to. It’s funny, really—we act like privacy is such a rare commodity, yet even we on Reddit had to cough up an email address just to sign up, all while leaving behind a massive digital footprint that makes it incredibly easy to track us down anyway...
Is Reddit actually a public space? I mean, is this platform truly open to everyone, or is there some unwritten rule somewhere stating that far-right extremists or certain political factions are banned at the door? Look, obviously everyone is entitled to their own political views—nobody’s disputing that—but absolutely no one has the right to weaponize their status on this site just to punish people who happen to disagree with them. That is the core issue here... and frankly, it's also about your warped understanding of what "punishing dissent" actually means. Moderators aren't God, nor are they some untouchable icons who can just ignore the site's own internal rules whenever they feel like it. Let me repeat myself: the fundamental problem isn't a clash of opposing ideologies; it’s the fact that certain moderators are straight-up insulting and discriminating against users based solely on those views. They slap labels on people and demonize them using the exact same heavy-handed tactics you'd see from old-school authoritarian regimes—all while masquerading as liberals and democrats...
lonebadger6 said:Look, there have been countless enthusiasts before you who love to drop links to things they clearly don't understand—so this is really just another pointless thread in my book—but fine, I’ll try to walk you through it...
Your fundamental human rights... I suppose I should start by saying that... well, there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those moments where you look at the state of things and realize how little has actually changed—despite all the noise, the endless debates, and the constant shifting of goalposts. It feels like we're just circling the drain, waiting for someone to finally acknowledge the obvious, though I won't hold my breath... Because they were targeted simply for their thoughts—or for actually speaking them out loud... Either you end up behind bars, or you spend the rest of your life being hunted down by the state... it’s really that simple..
And that is exactly why it’s strictly limited by the laws of any given nation—just as not every mindless thought that pops into someone's head qualifies as a legitimate "opinion"... but let's just set that particular nonsense aside for now...
Your fundamental human rights... Absolutely not. So, you’re just out here expressing your own opinion... fine. If that's how we're playing this. Wherever you want...Do you honestly think NPR has some kind of legal obligation to give you a thirty-minute prime-time slot just so you can drone on? Or that The Washington Post is duty-bound to print your little op-eds? You don't have a fundamental human right to go around scrawling your opinions all over someone else's private property... regardless of how much you think you're entitled to an audience.
Let’s be clear about one thing—no private forum has any legal obligation whatsoever to grant you, or anyone else for that matter, access to their platform. They aren't required to let you post whatever random thoughts cross your mind just because you feel like it... doing so doesn't constitute a violation of your rights, no matter how much you might want to argue otherwise. It's a private space, plain and simple.
And honestly, let’s not even get started on the sheer pathetic nature of these constant appeals to the UN to protect human rights and lives—as if that actually means anything here. I mean, seriously, how exactly are you being "threatened" on a message board? Did a tiny little yellow or red warning box pop up at the end of your post or something...? 😲 😲 😲 So, let me get this straight... you're telling me that for one single day, you actually lost access to one out of roughly 194,358,712,955,684,379 web pages? Just... gone? One day without that specific corner of the internet? Honestly, I can't even wrap my head around the sheer absurdity of it... 😲 😲 😲
You can be happy or miserable with this forum, that forum, or even all the moderators across the board—and look, you’re actually allowed to voice that frustration here, which puts us leagues ahead of most other sites out there—but this constant, desperate appeals to various declarations and official documents? It’s honestly laughable...
This is exactly the same as just quoting someone... Article 17.
And you’re actually sitting here whining because you got kicked out of a three-bedroom apartment that wasn't even yours to begin with... honestly...
I can't even begin to process this... there isn't enough context here to form a coherent thought, let alone a proper argument—which is exactly what we seem to be dealing with lately, isn't it? Just fragments and half-baked ideas floating around without any substance... honestly, it's exhausting. Article 13...
So you’re actually sitting there crying about your "human rights" just because your neighbor won't let you take a stroll through his backyard? Seriously...
To be blunt... You have, for instance, the absolute right to believe that we’re being surveilled via chemtrails—and you should be able to hold that opinion without fearing you'll end up behind bars or facing some other kind of existential threat just for thinking it.... ToIs that what you call human rights? Honestly... if this is your idea of defending fundamental liberties, we have bigger problems than I thought.Look, if you actually have the capital and the technical means to pull it off—I mean, if you truly have the resources and the infrastructure at your disposal—then by all means, go ahead and launch your own website, start your own newspaper, or even get a television station on the air dedicated entirely to chemtrails... It’s your right, after all. No, seriously... Not really... You have every single right to air your theories about chemtrails on national TV, on the radio, in major newspapers, on news sites, on Reddit, or pretty much anywhere else that isn't your own private property...
Yeah, well, your response is a perfect reflection of the general mindset held by most of the moderators over on Reddit... Honestly, I don't know if you young gentlemen have even bothered to look into the Companies Act, but that legislation lays out specific standards of conduct that apply regardless of whether a business is privately owned or state-run. Sure, an owner has certain rights—of course they do—but they also carry significant obligations. It’s the same principle whether you're walking into a high-end steakhouse or just some run-down local dive bar; the consumer, the customer, or even just a visitor, is entitled to decent, professional service. If they aren't satisfied, there is a formal complaint process in place—a paper trail that various inspectors are going to scrutinize first thing when they show up for an audit. Every single negative entry in that official log can end up costing an owner dearly... it could even be enough to get their doors shuttered for good. Look, you have to view this forum as nothing more than a local dive bar where we regulars drop in for a quick drink and a chat. Every single visit, every little comment we make, should be seen as a round of drinks that keeps the owner's lights on. Without guests, both the patrons and the pub go belly up—especially if word gets out that the bartenders are beating the customers, or in this case, that the moderators are insulting users and hurling slurs at them. Here, the moderator Zoran Oštrić actually called me a fascist and an American who denies the victims of Auschwitz... he’s banned me multiple times without any damn explanation and wouldn't even let me appeal the bans. It wasn't until I practically had to invoke the Bill of Rights that my appeals were finally given any light of day on this site. If a bartender in a real American diner refused to let a customer file a complaint in the official logbook, the owner would be facing some serious legal consequences. But what’s happening here? The owner and the admins just completely ignore my pleas to issue a public reprimand to Zoran Oštrić. I’m not even demanding a public apology; I’m just asking them to tell him to stop behaving in such a defamatory and dictatorial manner toward users who don't parrot his exact views. I won't get into every specific instance, but I can point to one example where my comment was wiped and I was penalized simply because I cited an analysis by a well-known American conservative demographer. And I’m certainly not the only one treated this way. Zoran just scrubs and punishes any comments that don't suit his mood, effectively stifling any actual debate or suffocating it with his own remarks—which, by the way, you aren't even allowed to reply to.
There, I hope I've managed to paint a clear picture of the situation for you. Granted, this is a private forum, but it’s also a platform hosted on a .com domain and registered as a corporation under the Companies Act, which means it's subject to American laws—something explicitly stated in the Terms of Service. Just as every apartment building has its house rules and every serious American corporation has a code of conduct, so does Reddit through its internal regulations. But if those rules apply to me, they have to apply to everyone equally—including the owner, and especially the moderators who are tasked with upholding those very rules.
I’ve started noticing that certain moderators are weaponizing their authority to stifle free speech—essentially purging anyone who dares to hold political or religious views that deviate from the norm. This is particularly rampant when we touch on sensitive topics like politics or history, and even extends to seemingly unrelated subjects like film... specifically when a movie acts as nothing more than a blatant political pamphlet designed to promote intolerance and hatred toward specific ethnic groups—take, for example, a film centered on the horrors of Auschwitz. It seems if a moderator leans toward the so-called "left"—and frankly, most of them do—anyone from the opposing "right-wing" camp gets slapped with a warning or a ban just to shut down the debate. The explanations provided by these mods rarely hold any water, and there is a clear pattern of discrimination at play; those on the "left" are granted total freedom of expression, while others are silenced, often while being subjected to blatant personal insults. A particular dictatorship is being exercised over the History sub-forum by the current moderator, Zoran Oštrić, who doesn't just issue bans and warnings to dissenters, but actively insults them using outdated labels from the old regime: fascist, chauvinist, cleric-fascist, nationalist, and so on... It is deeply unsettling that despite numerous complaints, higher authorities—super-mods, administrators, even the owner of the site itself—have been made aware of these practices. Yet, there is zero meaningful response. At best, they meet us with silence, and at worst, they actually seem to endorse this behavior by the designated moderators.
Therefore, I am directing the following to all of them:
Freedom of speech, opinion, and expression is a fundamental human right protected by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established back in 1948. It has been integrated into the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as our own domestic laws, most notably the Civil Rights Act.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
John Stuart Mill, the British philosopher and one of the founding fathers of modern liberalism, argued that freedom of speech should never be restricted because it is vital to the happiness of both the individual and society as a whole.
In the United States, the Civil Rights Act explicitly states in its opening section:
"Article 1. (1) This Act ensures the protection and promotion of equality as the highest value of the constitutional order of the United States, creating the conditions for equal opportunity and regulating protection against discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, color, sex, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, property, union membership, education, social status, marital or family status, age, health status, disability, genetic heritage, gender identity, or sexual orientation. (2) Discrimination under this Act is defined as placing any person in an unfavorable position based on the grounds listed in paragraph 1 of this article, including persons related to them by kinship or other ties. (3) Discrimination also includes placing a person in an unfavorable position based on incorrect assumptions regarding the existence of a basis for discrimination as listed in paragraph 1 of this article.
Hate speech in the US is sanctioned under federal law via various statutes.
"Whoever, through the press, radio, television, computer systems or networks, at a public gathering, or by any other means, publicly incites or makes available to the public leaflets, images, or other materials that call for violence or hatred directed toward a group of people or an individual member of a group due to their race, religion, national or ethnic origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other characteristics, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years."
What’s the consensus here, folks? Where do we draw the line when it comes to internal site rules—specifically regarding their blatant misuse by moderators—reaching the point where they start infringing upon fundamental human rights, or worse, when we're subjected to discrimination and slapped with various derogatory labels?...