... conspiracy requires 2 or more people to plan or act together. If someone acts on what they hear and they are not directed to act, or the act is not planned, it is not a conspiracy.
Agreed - that is the way the law works today. But my suggestion is to expand that - to cover cases where it can be demonstrated that the criminal has been embolden to take action based upon hate speech. For example, at a hate rally (KKK, anti Muslim, anti government, etc.), speaker says - Go out there and kill some xyz`s, or prints the same in their blog, newsletter, etc., and a criminal or mentally deficient person does exactly that, and it is shown that the criminal read or heard that admonition, and it is reasonable to presume that they would not have acted had they not read or heard - EVEN tho said speaker/writer and said criminal never directly spoke together, nor planned together - THEN I would include said speaker/writer within the conspiracy. Claiming no responsibility due to free speech, IMO, is nonsense.