But you see the issue with this right? Taking this example. Osama Bin Laden should not have been pursued by the US for 9/11 for years. He did not physically fly

But you see the issue with this right? Taking this example. Osama Bin Laden should not have been pursued by the US for 9/11 for years. He did not physically fly an airplane into the twin towers, he just told another group of guys to do it. Another extreme example. Hitler did not personally gas all the people at Auschwitz, his speech did convince others to do it. If Hitler had survived and was on trail at the Nuremberg trails, should he be found guilty or responsible for the murders at Auschwitz? Taking less extreme example. A mob bosses doesn't performs hits himself, he tells underlings to do those things. When your speech is direction in advocating, inciting, or ordering violence and someone does it, the most dangerous part is not the person who carried out the violence, it is the person who could manipulate the other person to do the terrible thing. Jim Jones probably rings a bell here. He didn't after all physically force the poisoned koolaid down the throats of people, but he was able to manipulate lots of people drink it and to poison it. Now granted, these are all examples of criminal cases, not civil like this one. But the point comes across. There obviously are some forms of speech that should tie responsibility back to a person. In the case of a mob boss who orders a hit. The standard for these are high, which is good, it usually has to be direct with knowing that people will carry it out. So there is a difference where blindingly screaming into the wind to kill the president, that probably isn't going to stick. But when you know you are speaking to people who will carry out your will, then it does.