While it's out of my character to defend the Sandusky Register, I have reached a point where it's become self-serving, to save aggravation.
Free speech is a privilege of living in America today. Where need be (to defend my position), I exercise that right to "rip" Matt Westerhold, but I do try to remain objective.
Most recently, while reading the online comments to "Salvation Army digs deep for donations" I was appalled at the inflammatory, emotionally charged online comments that literally turned onto a war of politics, law, sexuality, religion and ethnicity.
Ashley Porter was, indirectly, cast into the public eye solely because of this story. She and her family took an unsolicited, undeserved, verbal, online beating.
While friends came to her defense, the frenzy of racial slurs ensued and the objective of the story was quickly lost in battle. The attacks became personal, and public, to an imperfect private citizen.
This was a "feel good" article intended to support the community with the notion of gratuity and thankfulness. Instead the "Grinches of Ill-will" chose to turn this into an online war of words against Ashley and the Salvation Army. I am certain these comments reflect a minute part of readership opinion; however the angst of a dysfunctional society is apparent in these responses.
If commenter's can't address the issues and hold their tongues/keyboard to a relevant response, then I believe they should be objectively and responsibly, monitored and censured.
The Register has the software and a staff for this purpose but the parameters should be reviewed so the of bludgeoning will end.
If you cannot keep the responses to "civil" then maybe you should re-name the link "Vent here!" and send the comments into cyber-space.
Matt, because you are a public figure, your words and views are "open season"!