I appreciate that you attempt to undertake a nuanced position on free speech in this post. I note that, unlike most of your words I have read, you seem to be having difficulty establishing a clear position that is both just and reasonable. I find I don't really grasp what your actual position is as a result. I relate to that difficulty.

Does the speech being considered constitute criminal harm? If not, it's fine. If it does, that crime should be prosecuted. If I post your SSN, address, bank account number, the route you take on your daily routine, and call for harm to be done to you, that may rise to the level of criminal harm. I'm actually not convinced it does, but neither convinced it does not, so am willing to concede speech can descend to actual crime. In actuality, simply telling another person those things about you does not constitute a criminal act.

Neither am I convinced that literally advocating for physical attacks constitutes a criminal act. The enemedia actually do that incessantly, when beating the drums for war. Simply stating words about a thing is not the thing. "I club your head" does not actually cause a physical wound on your head. "Club his head at the corner of 5th and Stark at 7:45 AM on his way to work." doesn't either.

Thinking of doing that isn't a crime. Two people discussing doing so, however, may well be a conspiracy to commit that crime. That's a grey area for me. There are crimes that cannot be committed without a conspiracy first existing, because the complexities of committing the crime necessitate it. 9/11 would be an example of such a crime. I note again, however, that discussing 9/11 did not actually drop the towers, and had the actions not followed the words, no crime would have been committed IMHO.

Writers and cops often have to discuss such matters to do their jobs, and these discussions aren't intended to support criminal attacks. It would be unconscionable to consider folks doing their jobs thusly as criminals liable for prosecution, so discussing such things is not a crime. Speech includes pictures, video, equations, and much else, and even when it provides nominal information to support committing criminal acts does not meet the test of itself being a criminal act.

Therefore, considering such speech being criminal is dependent on whether or not actual criminal acts were facilitated by that speech. If no crime resulted, then no conspiracy can be proved. Only those conspiracies actually undertaken are actually criminal, IMHO.

Since the acts themselves are subject to prosecution, I see no need to prosecute the prior conspiring.

Thoughts?