(opinion) Allowing incitement as free speech only makes sense if you can/will hold them accountable for the results of their speech instead. It's either/or, bu

(opinion) Allowing incitement as free speech only makes sense if you can/will hold them accountable for the results of their speech instead. It's either/or, but not neither/nor. If I say to you, "please shoot john smith", and you do - I should either be held responsible for saying thus, or accomplice in the result. I can't imagine anyone would claim I was without fault or responsibility. To my mind, free-speech maximalism should hold me innocent of saying it, but has no bearing on my being accomplice to the result.