Since its inception, the online commentary area of the Ellenville Journal's website has been a lively place. With some articles and editorials generating hundreds of comments, discussions have addressed all manner of topics, from the specific and local to broad, philosophical concerns. Ideas are exchanged and arguments are made, and in some cases, opinions are swayed and minds actually changed. The Wal-Mart discussions come to mind in this regard.

The forum is unmoderated and anonymous. Some newspapers allow no comments. Others, like ours, allow any. While this allowance has the unfortunate side-effect of something of a free-for-all in terms taste and content, our lack of moderation is a necessity: we value our first-amendment rights as a newspaper, and while we strive to ensure accuracy and accountability in our reporting, we also wish to extend that right and freedom to as many people as possible.

Such freedom brings with it the possibility of abuse, and sadly this has, at times, occurred.

The internet has been part of mainstream culture for over a decade, and like any medium, it has an associated style of consumption peculiar to its technology and usage. In a nutshell, most of what one reads should be taken with a huge grain of salt — a pile, even. Ease of publication and almost total anonymity creates a severe challenge to credibility.

The few who sign their names to what they say are an anomaly, and, while it is refreshing to see, does not inherently make a difference to the thread of discussion.

Last week, the Ellenville Journal ran some commentary critical of the forum, comparing the anonymity of the forum posters to that provided by the white sheets of the Ku Klux Klan. While the comparison may be a bit extreme, the point is taken. Others have despaired over the unruly nature of the forum, to the point of suggesting we throw the whole thing out. Often, the complaints are accompanied by a blindness to the dozens of valuable and constructive discussions that do occur there.

Unfounded statements are routine, but they are also easy to spot and just as easy to dismiss. Furthermore, if you find that you're unhappy with the level of discourse and discussion, there's a fairly simple answer: raise it.

That first-amendment right extends to us all. It's sad and frustrating to see that, often, the lowest-sorts of internet trolls are most of the ones who decide to exercise it. Again, there are exceptions to this trend, and it is refreshing and exciting when a discussion remains respectful and courteous. This is a trend that we, as writers and citizens ourselves, would love to see continue and grow. Banish the trolls back to their place: under the bridge.

Next week we will start a new feature, printing excerpts of the online discussion in the print version of the newspaper. It will be interesting to see what happens when comments intended for the most informal of media are suddenly presented in a format that is much more structured.

COMMENTS about this article (24)