[KozmoNau7]

If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C.

Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have to act!"), that should also be dealt with, rather harshly.

Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say exactly what you want, and neither the government nor anyone else can legally stop you from doing so. But they can very much hold you accountable for the consequences of what you say, and the manner in which you said it (eg. publicly, to a large crowd of angry people).

[js8]

"then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C"

If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and extortion.

I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?

"Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

I strongly disagree, and I think it's misunderstanding of concept of free speech. The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free.

People often give an example of somebody saying something to their employer and the employer firing them for that. This is a limitation of free speech.

Before making that argument, you should consider that in the communist regimes (such in Czech Republic), dissidents were often suppressed by being fired from their job. You're effectively saying that it was morally acceptable, and I disagree.

[KozmoNau7]

>"I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?"

That is ideally for the courts to decide, whether A's utterances and calls for action can reasonably be said to have incited B's actions. Obviously B bears the primary responsibility, but A can also be culpable, especially if they have knowledge that their words are very likely to spur people like B into action.

>"The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free."

No. Even in the US ("LAND OF THE FREE RAH RAH RAH HOME OF THE BRAVE U S A U S A U S A"), freedom of speech is not absolute. There are laws against libel and slander, for good reason.

If you walk up to your employer and call them a fascist limp-dicked low-paying money-grubbing shitstain, what do you think will happen? Do you think you'll just keep your job, keep working as if nothing happened? Do you think they'll just ignore that and act as if nothing had happened?

What if you do the same thing by posting it publicly on the internet or in a newspaper? Do you expect there to be no consequences?

In other words, freedom of speech means that you are free to express yourself, with no threat of censorship. It does not absolve you from responsibility for what you said. Stand by what you say, take responsibility.