Internet afterlife of a killer raises questions of free speech

While witnesses were being interviewed via mobile phones and soundbites were gathered from ordinary residents, the events which occurred by a stretch of river in Rothbury dominated the schedules. His death in the early morning of Saturday morning brought to an end a week-long search for the gunman, but by the time dozens of armed police were leaving the quiet village, the story was snowballing on the internet.

A group was set up on the social networking site Facebook in tribute to Moat, who shot his ex-girlfriend Samantha Stobbart, killed her new partner Chris Brown and left PC David Rathband blind. Thousands have now become members and with increasing concern about the nature of messages being posted online, it has led to a fierce debate on the line between freedom of speech and the normal boundaries of taste and decency.

In the age of the internet, the goal posts have changed and sites like Facebook, which has refused to close down the web page, have provided a new outlet for people to express their feelings, however unpleasant.

"Social media like Twitter and Facebook allows us to feel linked into real events," says Carey Cooper, professor in organisational, psychology and health at Lancaster University. "People are very interested in how an event happens and in the case of Raoul Moat, how it got to the end stage.

"It's like rubbernecking at an accident, people are very curious about how people cope with crisis and disasters."

Despite criticism from Prime Minister David Cameron and a number of other politicians from both sides of the House of Commons, Facebook has defended its stance, issuing a statement, which described the site as "a place where people can express their views and discuss things in open way as they in many other places," adding, "as such sometimes find people discussing topics that others may find distasteful", including, no doubt, Moat's victims and their families.

The comments on Facebook range from empathy to outright condemnation of Moat's actions. Many are throwaway remarks, posted in seconds with no thought of the consequences.

Even those who never met the former bouncer, have felt qualified to

post their own analysis of his motivations and vent much anti-police sentiment.

"A virtual community gives people anonymity to say what they want," says Prof Cooper. "On these sites, no-one really knows each other and the comments can quickly spiral out of control.

"However, I don't honestly believe that Raoul Moat will ultimately emerge as some kind of anti-hero. At the moment, people are just feeling guilty about why no-one helped him.

"He was a human being who had problems and needed help and if he'd had it, he might have gone in a different direction."

As 50 bouquets were left outside Moat's former home in Newcastle, the calls for Facebook to ban, or at the very least monitor the messages being left online, grew louder. However, while the tributes left by the river in Rothbury, which have turned a small corner of the Northumbria village into a macabre shrine, were described as "extraordinarily disappointing" by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, it's unlikely to be the last such outpouring.

"It is part of our natural psychology to ask why people behave as they behave," says Prof Cooper. "Whether we like it or not we are going to see more and more of this in the future and unless someone is going online to advocate terrorism, the reality is we can't stop it."