Why Facebook are right to allow ‘R.I.P. Raoul Moat' tribute

July 15, 2010

Why Facebook are right to allow ‘R.I.P. Raoul Moat tribute

There is uproar over the tribute page set up for Raoul Moat on Facebook. The media are becoming ever more outraged as the numbers joining the page climb past 38,000 and yesterday and Downing Street are apparently leaning on Facebook.

However, Facebook say the page is within its terms and conditions and should stay up – and they are right to do so. Those adding adoration for the callous killer are entitled to their opinion, however offensive the majority and indeed the media find it.

Make no mistake, I find it reprehensible that Moat, a cold-blooded killer who triggered a massive manhunt after shooting his ex-partner, killing her boyfriend and seriously wounding a policeman, should be eulogised in this way. It certainly wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t shot himself when surrounded by the police.

Flowers have been left outside his home in Newcastle by those who knew and liked him, together with those who feel his pain, and even those who applaud his actions. More floral tributes in Rothbury where the killer hid out and eventually died.

Responding in Parliament yesterday the Prime Minister was wholesome in his condemnation when he stormed: “As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer - full stop, end of story - and I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man.”

The crucial words overlooked by the media are ‘however small’. Crucially he identifies that actually, the numbers involved in this Facebook page and those leaving the flowers are actually very small.

There may well be questions about a system that allowed Raoul Moat to reach this stage, access firearms and what prompted his ex-partner to lie about dating a police officer? Those too should be expressed and answered and some are appearing on the Facebook page.

When I was a police press officer with Thames Valley Police, the first bunch of flowers left at a scene of tragedy were actually placed by a newspaper photographer to get a photo in time for deadline. Others took the hint and florists were happy to oblige and after a few hours there were plenty of flowers. This phenomenon has grown and rolling news ensures that any such floral tributes are widely shown, encouraging more people to leave flowers.

The internet has allowed for tribute websites to leave virtual flowers that do not fade, except perhaps in the search engines and now social media has turbo-charged that into something altogether more powerful. Now it is flowers and Facebook and again, courtesy of the rolling media, lots more people are aware and have joined in condemning the tribute page and clearly in some cases supporting it. In simple terms, Facebook just facilitates people expressing their emotions; social media increases the audience.

While the UK has no ‘first amendment’ guaranteeing freedom of speech, we do have laws that allow people to express honestly held or truthful views. Thankfully Facebook is more mindful of these than our politicians.

As a complete aside, the winner of Newbury Comedy Festival’s amateur contest, Matt Richardson, cracked a joke in Tuesday’s final about Facebook tribute pages. Involved in a near miss car crash he said that his life didn’t flash before his eyes, only a realisation that the only three people who knew he didn’t want a Facebook tribute page were in the car with him.

UPDATE 17.00 THURSDAY 15TH JULY

The offending tribute page has been deleted - but not by Facebook who stood by its decision. Instead the creator of the page Siobhan O'Dowd voluntarily deleted it after being overwhelmed by the uproar.

This blog stands, but perhaps what the latest development shows is the weak link in the chain. No doubt other groups will spring up and no matter how repugnant making Raoul Moat into a hero may seem to the majority, they have the right to hold that view.


Comments

Ray Lee said...

I think a point that is being overlooked is how broken the relationship is between the Police and the general public.

A majority of people under the age of 30 see nothing positive about the police and anyone who can cause this much press with the police (and let's face it they are not coming out this well at the moment) will be seen as a hero.

The police need to take a look at how they create and build relationships with people that show they can be trusted (of course a lot of this is down to laws passed by Labour but also the last Con. Government banning the likes of raves etc when all people see it as load of old farts not wanting kids to have a good time) and not just a force who want to harass people and arrest them for what they see as minor issues.

Ray Lee, 15/07/2010 13:54
www.twitter.com/rayleee
Elly said...

I think it's important that we are allowed to express our views, because although in many cases they are views (as on the FB tribute pg) that I don't agree with, if government & media can decide what views we have when might that change?

I don't want to be in a society where my views would not be allowed to be expressed if I critisied or had different view point to those in power.

There are legitamate questions and concerns regarding this particular case too.

The more people try to repress views, opionion the more people listen to that view. It's the same with the BNP let them express their view as, I hope, that when people actually heard it they would realise how stupid, racist and weird the party is!

Elly, 15/07/2010 14:05
www.twitter.com/fairywishes
Nikki said...

Nigel,

Thought-provoking post as always...

This whole saga, from beginning to end, is full of accountability issues. Who is to blame? Facebook for allowing people to exercise their rights?

There will always be a fine line between freedom of speech and censorship. And whether we object on moral grounds, people are entitled to their views. While I don't condone people hero-worshipping this man via Facebook, they still have the right to do so. They are accountable for their own actions at the end of the day.

The interesting issue to explore is why. Moat himself courted publicity. He wanted the attention - and got it! Perhaps he wanted to be seen as a villainous hero - someone who could toy with the police. Perhaps, if we believe the stories, he was desperate to be loved - and that his actions were as a result of his despair at being rejected. It doesn't make it alright though...

As for his legacy, will Moat be seen as a dysfunctional victim of society who never got the help he needed? Probably. Will Moat be glorified and idolised as someone who stood up to the police? Probably. Will this happen again? Yes... I suspect it will.

Some might argue that allowing the media within 10 paces of the action, and capturing the awful moment when he took his life, merely glorified the event itself. Turned what was a tragic story, where innocent people were killed or injured, into a media frenzy.

While I disagree with suppressing news or banning people from expressing opinion, I find it terribly sad that there are those in our society who choose to idolise someone who takes a life...

It is sad that people choose to idolise someone like Moat.

Nikki, 15/07/2010 16:32
www.thewordwell.co.uk
www.thewordwell.co.uk/wordpress
www.twitter.com/thewordwell
Theresa Coligan said...

Excellent post - and I couldn't agree more about the Facebook page. I was really shocked that people were clamouring to remove it and I was worried that Cameron would get on the bandwagon. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and the public have the right to have their say - whether we agree with it or not.

What disappointed me (though maybe I shouldn't have been surprised) was Cameron labelling him a "callous murderer." Personally I don't think labels of that kind help anyone. This was a human being who, for whatever reason, got tipped over the edge and performed some truly terrible acts. Why he did it we will never know, but we should feel sorry for him, sorry for his family and sorry for his victims at one and the same time.

Theresa Coligan, 15/07/2010 19:03
www.thinkingthin.co.uk
www.thinkingthin.co.uk/blog
www.twitter.com/theresacoligan
www.linkedin.com/in/theresacoligan
Martin Warnes said...

Hi Nigel

The Roaul Moat / Facebook incident has very little to do with free speech or one's entitlement to have their own opinion.

The important point is it hi-light society's increasingly dysfunctional attitude towards what IS and IS NOT reality.

Martin Warnes, 20/07/2010 12:16
www.warnesidco.co.uk
Cat said...

With my Probation hat on, my main concern with the Raoul Moat FB site was the amount of posts on it advocating domestic violence.

Cat, 05/08/2010 17:47
smudgie-thesmudge.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/MrsRives

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website

Blog

Twitter

LinkedIn

Submit Comment