I found out the forum or the admins are violating two constitutional laws

1) Under American law, people have the right to express their OPINIONS freely

2) Laws exist to protect intellectual property
----

I want to demonstrate and prove that either this forum or its mod-admin team is violating these principles on a daily basis—essentially, they aren't acting in accordance with the spirit of the law

---
You can see thousands of examples of this right being exercised here every single day; anyone should be able to speak up

1) The most frequent issue is that criticism of a specific post or a fellow user is often suppressed, leading to unjustified bans or warnings

2) Without any real explanation, moderators edit, cut, close, move, or even outright delete😲 original threads, which is a direct violation of the intellectual property rights of those who write here

----
Here are some further explanations and illustrations.

I’ve posted about this before, but since finding old posts is a nightmare, please just take my word for it.
It’s about this case.

I remember how Kuljišev was cleared of defamation charges multiple times because the court ruled that he was simply expressing his personal opinion.

Aha, found it!🙂

The court determined that Kuljišev's words were merely his subjective opinion and decided that punishing someone based on their writing style would be inappropriate.

According to one news outlet, his lawyer argued it was incredibly offensive to call his minor daughter a wretch, his son a donkey, or the prosecutor, Dikan, a local sheep.

On the other hand, Kuljišev's attorney cited a legal provision stating that a journalist isn't liable for libel or insult unless it's proven they acted with the specific intent to damage someone's reputation. Ultimately, the court ruling went in Kuljišev's favor.

Uocite that if 29 out of 30 moderators on this PUBLIC forum—which is designed specifically for the exchange of ideas, criticism, and debate—were to act, they would probably try to punish Kuljišev with bans or warnings.
The biggest absurdity, and proof that the mods are working against the very purpose of this forum, is the fact that we are dealing with anonymous usernames that the moderators supposedly "protect" from criticism, even when someone just calls a post stupid.

Uocite that US courts acquit journalists who write extremely harshly about public figures with full names, yet here we have anonymous handles🙄 so why do moderators constantly meddle in discussions and debates instead of allowing
vibrant, even heated, communication? Since the usernames are anonymous anyway, there's really no reason to interfere.

Just a heads-up: everything posted here belongs to Reddit, not the people who actually wrote it. The admins can basically do whatever they want with your content...

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:Every single post on this site belongs to Reddit, not the people who actually wrote them. That gives the admins total freedom to do whatever they want with our content...

Daniel Ward87

Do you honestly believe that kind of logic aligns with the spirit of the First Amendment? Or even the basic purpose of an online community, which should be fostering open communication?

In other words,

is your little "explanation" actually rooted in the spirit of

truth,
beauty,
and goodness?

Those three core values, anyway.

Look, this was said in the spirit of private property rights and the general rules of Reddit that you agreed to when you joined...

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:That was said in the spirit of private property rights and the general rules of Reddit, which you agreed to when you joined...

Daniel Ward87

You’re forgetting that this is also a PUBLIC forum, not JUST a private one.

It’s just like how a coffee shop is a public gathering place.

A cafe owner, even though it's their private business, doesn't have the right to ban guests from coming in, hand-pick who stays, or
dictate whether they can discuss politics, religion, or what they think about the establishment itself.

They could, sure, if they turned it into their own living room.😉
---
But you didn't actually address the core of my point.

Do you agree that the moderators are overstepping by handing out warnings just for criticism or debate? It feels like they're absurdly protecting anonymous online handles and stifling any free-flowing discussion.

hiddenpuma75 said:You're forgetting this is a PUBLIC forum, not a private one.

Where are you getting that from?

The forum is 100% private. However, the public is allowed to post here if they agree to the owner's terms. It’s up to you whether you want to participate or not. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

Jose White18 said:Where on earth are you getting that from?

The forum is absolutely and 100% private property, but the public is allowed to participate in it—specifically, people who agree to the terms set by the owner. It's your choice. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here.

Look, I’m keeping my points brief, but I think my posts make my intentions pretty clear.

A forum is simultaneously PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
Your own home is strictly private; in your house, you can do whatever you want and invite whoever you please.
In your living room, you can kick someone out whenever you feel like it, but you can't do that in a local coffee shop or on a forum, which are both PUBLIC spaces.

Just because a forum is privately owned doesn't mean the owner or the moderators can just act on every whim. There are both affirmative and restrictive "laws" that apply to them and the users alike.

By affirmative, I mean that since the space is public, it needs to facilitate communication and the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
Which means if I were to write (just as an example, I don't actually mean this ) something like "your post is stupid and you're probably pretty stupid too,"
that shouldn't be grounds for a ban, because any judge in an American court would also dismiss a charge against me for saying that.

So, the answer isn't simply "it's a private forum," implying that if you call me stupid, you deserve to be banned.

Private ownership doesn't give someone (at least not in spirit) the right to ban anyone just for pointing out that a post is poorly written or foolish.
And that’s what’s happening here—I’m curious if most users agree that banning a virtual persona like hiddenpuma75 is an overreaction, just because he pointed out that your post was nonsense.---

Restrictive rules exist, sure, but being "restrictive" doesn't mean the owner can do whatever they want just because they hold the deed.
They can't, because the forum is public.
They could if they ran the whole thing from their basement on a private home network.

I'm simply arguing a point that seems observable every single day: the moderators get way too involved in debates and end up banning CRITICISM directed at other posts or at anonymous users.

I tried to make a clear comparison: judges in American courts acquit people for much harsher statements made toward PUBLIC FIGURES whose identities are known, yet here, moderators are overstepping by interfering in the flow of conversation just to protect the anonymity of various digital handles.🙄

Welcome to the club....

1. Moderators are selected based on how much they fit the vibe rather than actual competence.

2. No matter how much users complain about a particularly irritating moderator, they rarely get replaced. The same applies to user requests regarding who should be appointed to the role.

3. Most moderators are subjective—either biased or convinced they have a divine intuition. This creates a double standard: you can't say what you think if a mod takes offense, yet blatant outbursts often go unsanctioned. Or, they just hand out bans "preventatively."

3. Everyone (admins and mods alike) tends to enforce their own rules with zero room for nuance or common sense, even though we all know exceptions are what make rules meaningful. This rigid intolerance is exactly what triggers user backlash, which the mods then meet with nothing but more bans.

4. Generally speaking, the difference between God and a forum moderator is that God doesn't think he's a forum moderator.

☕

😁

Isn't a forum essentially just like a private residence?

You agree to certain terms and conditions when you walk through the door, and if the owner or the security staff decide they don't like your attitude, they have every right to show you the exit.

I’m genuinely curious what people would say if I just barged into your living room and started painting your walls blue because, hey, the government says I have freedom of speech, so who are you to stop me? 😁

Ryan Wilson2 said:Isn't a forum essentially like someone's private apartment?

Not really. A forum isn't a private residence; it's more like a pub—a private establishment serving a public purpose. ☕

Ryan Wilson2 said:You agreed to certain terms when you joined, and if the owner or the staff doesn't like you, they can kick you out.

Sure, there are terms set by the owner, but that doesn't grant them the right to terrorize their guests.

For instance, if the rules prohibit smoking, you can't just toss someone out simply because you suspect they’re a smoker or because they happen to be carrying a pack of cigarettes.

Or bar someone from entry just because they called someone else an idiot. (Politeness policing is a leftover relic of old-school authoritarianism, and frankly, people are usually only as offensive as their egos are fragile).

hiddenpuma75 said:… so, were your "explanations" actually delivered in the spirit
of truth,
beauty,
and goodness
—those three fundamental values?

Which laws are actually written in the spirit of those three values? And why would anyone define them that way? You mention the Constitution of the United States. According to that, our core principles are: liberty, equality, national unity and gender equality, peacekeeping, social justice, respect for human rights, the sanctity of private property, environmental protection, the rule of law, and a democratic multi-party system. Hmm, I don't see how that quite fits your logic…

hiddenpuma75 said:… A coffee shop owner, even though it’s his private business, doesn't have the right to bar customers from entering, pick and choose who comes in, or dictate whether they can discuss politics, religion, or what kind of establishment it is…

Actually, a business owner absolutely can refuse service to a customer (especially one who’s making a mess), and they certainly have the right to set the general vibe. For instance, we all know there's a difference between what's tolerated in a local dive bar versus a high-end jazz club. Similarly, if someone isn't following the rules, the owner can call the police to have them removed or even pursue civil action privately.

hiddenpuma75 said:… you're forgetting that this is also a PUBLIC forum, not JUST a private one…

Just because a site is easily accessible and everyone can read it doesn't mean it's "public" in the sense you're implying. It is private property; it's a registered entity, and as a user, you've already agreed to its specific terms of service.

hiddenpuma75 said:… An apartment is purely private, and in an apartment, you can do whatever you want and invite whoever you want…

You definitely cannot do whatever you want in an apartment. For example, you can't assault a partner, commit murder, possess illegal drugs, counterfeit currency, and so on. You can't blast loud music, hammer away at walls during quiet hours, do renovations during a neighbor's nap time, or toss trash out the window. Essentially, you aren't allowed to commit crimes or misdemeanors.

hiddenpuma75 said:… Just because this forum is private property doesn't mean the owner or the moderators can act with total impunity. There are still boundaries and rules—both affirmative and restrictive—that apply to them just as much as they do to the users...

Look, when you register as a member, you’re essentially agreeing to the house rules. Those rules aren't supposed to conflict with established legal standards. If you truly believe they do, you're more than welcome to file a private lawsuit like any other citizen would.

hiddenpuma75 said:… we use anonymous handles here, yet the moderators constantly jump into discussions and debates instead of letting people have raw, even heated, communication since everyone is anonymous anyway

As I’m sure you’ve already been told, these are simply the rules of this community. If they don't sit well with you, feel free to find another community. Or better yet, start your own blog where you can be the sole arbiter of what is and isn't allowed.

Just so we’re clear, I occasionally find the moderators' actions quite grating myself. But so be it. They are a necessary component of the ecosystem, and if someone finds it absolutely intolerable…👋

And there it is. The reality finally hits us... 🙂 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:1) Under the laws of the United States, you have the absolute right to express your own damn opinions.

2) Federal law exists specifically to protect intellectual property rights.
----

I’m basically on a mission here to prove—and I mean actually demonstrate—that this entire forum, and honestly, the mods and admins too, are stepping all over these legal principles on a daily basis. In other words, they aren't exactly playing by the rules of the land.

http://www.supremecourt.gov

http://www.justice.gov

Let me know how it goes when you file. 👋