At least in Germany, laws often have the amendment "Der Versuch ist strafbar.". Attempts to commit the the crime are punished just like actually committing it,

At least in Germany, laws often have the amendment "Der Versuch ist strafbar.". Attempts to commit the the crime are punished just like actually committing it, which makes total sense to me: When you are a bad person, you should not benefit legally just because on top of it you are also incompetent. This makes sure that you still get punished for murder if your victim somehow lives, because a doctor reanimates him or her. I do think if someone is for example requesting to kill a person/group online or is searching for people to join him to do something like that, a judge should decide how severe the case is, hand out a warrant and the author should be held accountable. Of course you have to consider the context and tone. It is also very difficult to check whether someone is just thinking out loud (e.g. "one should") or actively requesting something. That's why I don't think this law is a good idea, because that's something judges should decide not some Facebook interns afraid of a 50 million dollar fine. I don't know whether hate speech is actually that big of a problem. If so, what we really need here is a streamlined way to complain to the police, gather all the evidence, categorize the issue, pre-check it and then hand it over to a judge. This process could be half-automated and have very narrow questions for the user (e.g. "Is this a death-threat?", "Is an exact date mentioned in the threat?") to exclude as much as possible as early as possible and need as few policemen as possible.