Moat and "Freedom of Speech"
First off, I have no particular feelings about Moat. I'm not sure I can honestly say I feel sympathy for him, except possibly in the most general sense that he's dead when he didn't have to be. But in terms of sympathy with his position or his actions, I have none. Absolutely none whatsoever. His supposed mental health issues (and I say 'supposed' only because I know nothing at all about him except what the media are feeding me) mean that it's difficult to argue that "he deserved it", as I've seen some people saying. I think the only way I can really view it is in the most clinical sense: he made himself a threat and the threat is now eliminated.
The question of whether the police were at fault is moot. I can't know what happened, and I can't second-guess what could have happened. Nor can the media, but of course that doesn't stop them. Moat is dead, so if we allow him to shoulder the full responsibility for what he did (as would be my first instinct), then the media have no-one left to demonise. Therefore, there must be blame to be apportioned somewhere else. The media have an agenda, and that agenda is to make money. News and balanced reporting will always, but always, take at least second place behind this.
As to these attention-seekers on Facebook, if they want to idolise this sorry individual then that's up to them. One point I would make, though, amidst all the ranting about "free speech", is that it's important to understand the difference between the civil right to free speech, which means you can say what you like about what you like without being censored or locked up; and the concession granted us by the owners of private, corporate forums to say what they agree to let us say on those forums.
There is no intrinsic right to freedom of speech when you're using a privately owned medium. If El Reg, for example, wanted to ban a certain point of view from its forums, it would be perfectly within its rights to do so, because those forums are private. We do not have a civic right to freedom of expression here; nor do users of Facebook. It's a little like the common assumption that the public have a right to enter a shop. You don't: the shop extends an open invitation, but if the staff decide they don't like you, that invitation can be withdrawn.
Facebook were not ordered to remove the group. If they had been, and had been forced under law to comply, then I'd be worried. They were asked; they refused. Had they been asked, and *agreed* to comply, then there would be no free speech issue: it is the company's site, and users operate under the company's rules.