[appreciatorBus]

This is an absurd standard that no society can hold members to.

If you are judged not on your actions but on the actions others may take due to words they heard from someone who heard them from someone who heard them from you, then we might as well close up shop.

The responsibility for actions remains with the people who those actions.

The exceptions we have traditionally made, "You can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" same quite reasonable next to, "You cant discuss the sexual dimorphism of humans because someone somewhere might feel bad about themselves"

[programjames]

The standard can be, "don't utter words with the intent of spurring others onto antisocial actions."

[appreciatorBus]

Who decides whether or not there was intent behind your words?

What do we do when people disagree about the intent behind a word?

Who decides what is antisocial?

What do we do when people disagree about what is antisocial?

I don't believe there are neat clean answers to any of these. The closest we'll get will involve mutual respect, assumption of good faith, and dialogue. We can't have any of that if our starting point is, "I believe your words are secretly not what you say they are" or "I will hold you responsible for anything bad that anyone does that might be tenuously connected to your words"

[programjames]

Yes, people can always claim that wasn't their intent, but what you see quite often nowadays is people openly saying their intent is to get people to take action. "I wouldn't personally... but I have massive respect for those who do. We need more people with the balls to do something about it."

This is probably less restrictive than you are advocating for in your previous comment: as long as there is plausible deniability, the speech goes free.