Blog responsibility?

I've been following this story about the shooting in Montreal, Canada. Over the past 24 hours, the headlines have been stating that the shooter had a blog and there were comments made on that blog which can explain the shooter's attitude and behavior.

The response to these stories has begun. According to this item from CNews, the "online community," (don't you love how things are phrased) states that the actions of the shooter has nothing to do with the site.

Site owner Jethro Berelson, who goes by Jet online, insisted Thursday that Gill’s actions and comments had nothing to do with the site or goth culture.

“You know, I think people on the site are generally very friendly and nice, and don’t really do any crimes,” he said in a telephone interview from Brooklyn, N.Y.

Goth is a culture? I had no idea. But, here's the thing. What bothers me is the fact that this is not the first time this site has been linked with a murder.
[the site] came under the media spotlight in April after a triple murder in Medicine Hat, Alta. A 12-year-old girl and 23-year-old man accused of the killings were alleged to have profiles on the site.
Even though this Montreal story is new, it goes back to the same old debate: Does the media (movies, music, television, videogames, internet, blogs, etc) have a direct link to influencing a person's behavior? Does the media have a responsibility to society to prevent producing products that are deemed harmful?

Now, I don't want to get into a free speech and censorship debate with people. Yes, people have a right to say what they want to say, like, "Life is like a videogame, you gotta die sometime."

Montreal's Dawson College now has one less student and twenty wounded students. Could this tragedy have been prevented? Maybe yes and maybe no.