Opening up a dialogue with readers is instructive, even if we don't agree with everything they say.

For decades we have done so through our letters to the editor, which are reviewed, edited and authenticated. A well-reasoned letter with a name behind it is essential to public dialogue, and it gives many of our friends and neighbors the chance to toss their opinion out to a few hundred thousand readers.

But letters to the editor are only one means to establish "community conversation," and recently The Advertiser has opened up more outlets for free speech. The obvious advantage is the immediacy and frequency of the reaction. The disadvantage is the unfiltered and unedited nature of the postings and the occasional stray trip into the land of the obnoxious or hateful.

We have long maintained The Advertiser's discussion board. It's a virtual world of debate with dozens of topics, from whether Dog Chapman should be extradited to Mexico to what should be done about the homeless problem on the Leeward Coast. Glancing at it the other day, I noticed that it had 3,740 members, 3,671 threads and 165,185 posts. The refusal of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada to go to Iraq, the Akaka bill and the Kamehameha Schools ruling have generated considerable debate.

Discussion rules are posted for those who sign up. Volunteer moderators help to maintain a sense of civility on the site. That which is deemed libelous, threatening, derogatory or sexually explicit is reported and removed.

Now we have much more interaction, including Story Chat, which allows immediate posts to individual stories. We have blogs with greater reader interactivity. We have tribute pages that allow posters to send their congratulations to local athletes or condolences to families of those killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. We solicit opinions from our readers on how to clean up graffiti, what should be done about pedestrian accidents and other issues of concern.

To my way of thinking, this is all to the good. We should encourage free speech since, after all, we are in the First Amendment business. But this new kind of dialogue brings with it a measure of caution: the more readers have an outlet to say what they think, the more we as editors have to monitor what they are saying.

This became clear when I was reading through the comments posted in the aftermath of the Waikele beating, in which an Army couple was assaulted after their car hit another in a shopping center parking lot. A 44-year-old man was arrested and charged with second-degree assault and his 16-year-old son, also arrested, is going through confidential proceedings in Family Court.

In the newspaper, the letters to the editor about the beating (and there were many) made some strong points about race. A debate ensued over whether or not this constituted a hate crime because a vulgarity coupled with the word "haole" allegedly was used during the incident. You might not agree with the opinions, but the points were made with decorum.

Contrast that with some of the postings on Story Chat, where the authors have to register but can remain anonymous to readers. They used looser language, made bolder assertions and a few audacious comments about race. A single story on the subject generated 158 comments and 6,943 page views.

One reader suggested that the father accused of assault be required to get a license to have children. One (which we deleted) discussed revenge on the father and son. Some presented cartoonish stereotypes of Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians that bordered on racism.

It's the same kind of commentary you might get on a local talk radio station where a caller is usually identified by a first name and a hometown. The host always reserves the right to bleep out an obscenity or boot the caller off the air. But the commentary, for the most part, is raw and uncensored.

At The Advertiser, we have limited the number of Story Chats we'll place on stories in one day so we can monitor what is being written. Our bloggers know what to allow on their sites and we carefully study our tribute pages so nothing inappropriate is posted. Moderators still patrol our forums.

We have come to realize that the standards are different in print and online. Unlike letters to the editor, we neither select nor edit the commentary posted online other than to remove it completely, such as a forum thread that has suddenly spiraled out of control.

Free speech is essential and it's not always pretty but when it appears under the name of The Advertiser, it should always stay within the bounds of good taste.