With the advent of social networking sites, people from all walks of life are now committing their personal feelings into print, often on internet sites that can be circulated around the world in seconds.

Writing about our personal thoughts is nothing new and many of us still do so in the traditional way using pen and ink to friends and family. However, when does putting our personal views and opinions into media oblivion become dangerous and downright distasteful?

I enjoy writing to and reading a variety of newspapers, in print and on the internet and the option to put a comment can be very satisfying particularly when correcting misinformation in any given report or article.

Reading other people's comments occasionally persuades me to change my often rigid point of view. Newspaper journalists such as Liz Jones describe their innermost feelings graphically and honestly but sometimes embarrassingly for those named. But when should honesty be stifled because it causes true offence to the reader?

Looking at the recent postings on the Bristol Evening Post website, particularly those relating to the tragedy on the Avonmouth Bridge, will leave many appalled. Why are people so willing to commit their nastiness to print when it really belongs in the bin?

In Portishead, we have seen our fair share of nasty views on a range of topics, often from people who have no interest in finding the facts but wish to have a go at someone.

Differing opinions stated sensibly are fascinating but spitefulness and bullying are uncomfortable reading.

The recent motorway incident that sadly resulted in someone's death highlights a modern day problem with free expression.

Whilst some people frustrated with being caught up in the resulting traffic, commented offering rational suggestions for the police and emergency services should the motorway be closed in the future, others posted shocking views including alternative suicide suggestions, taunts to the person involved, "to hurry up and jump", whilst remarking on the person's selfishness without seeing egotism in their own words.

The Evening Post has strived to ensure only legitimate comments are posted by imposing registration and it must be difficult to ensure free speech without being censorious about personal opinions, even when they are plainly unconnected to the subject matter and have the sole aim to bully someone or cause offence.

I have been on the receiving end of such words myself but have been writing long enough to take the good with the bad. Often nasty comments are left anonymously or hidden behind a Christian name that could belong to anyone.

However, the comments regarding closure of the motorway went several steps further. Perhaps one day they may have the courage to stand up to the conviction behind their unpleasant words.

I doubt anyone will write in to take ownership of their words on the internet, which I imagine were so easily left without any thought of how hard it may be for someone else to read them, particularly the person's family left behind.

Annette Hennessy Portishead