When the level of pornographic rantings rise to the level to induce violence, then you are guilty.
Guilty of what? Incitement to violence perhaps, but that is quite a different matter from conspiring to commit acts of violence, or procuring acts of violence.
Remember that Streicher was convicted for Crimes against Humanity, and thus condemned to death (since the Western judges had agreed informally that only a conviction on that count would incur the death penalty), on the rather dubious grounds that his anti-Semitic propaganda constituted persecution. The court did not even try to prove any causal connection between his propaganda and the actual acts of mass violence committed against the Jews.
The whole argument is so completed inane it defies belief. You wouldn't be making such an unsupportable absolute freedom of speech argument if the victims were other than Jew.
This is paranoid nonsense. I specifically drew a parallel with the illegal killing of doctors who perform abortions by persons incited by the violently hostile words uttered by anti-abortion campaigners. I noted that the persons who uttered those violently hostile words had not been prosecuted as accomplices or conspirators, and concluded that under the law there was not a sufficient causal relationship between those words and the violent acts to constitute conspiracy or procurement of an illegal act. I reasoned that the same legal consideration should apply to Streicher's violently hostile words. I did not call for the prosecution of the anti-abortion campaigners for conspiracy or procurement of murder (although I would consider it just to prosecute them for incitement) despite the fact that the victims were not Jews (some of the doctors killed may have been Jewish, but that is not relevant to the issue).
I think the shoe is actually on the other foot. I think it highly likely that Xanthro would not call for the death penalty for someone who made violently hostile propaganda against persons who were not Jewish. I would be fairly certain that he would not call for the death penalty for a Jew who habitually incited the killing of Arabs.
If someone stands on a street corner and starts screaming over and over, "Kill the blacks, they raped by daughter. Kill the Blacks, the raped my sister" and someone then kills a Black person, you are as guilty as the person who commited the murder.
No, the person shouting on the street corner is not guilty of the same crime as the person who commits the murder. If a person hears the cry "Kill the blacks, they raped my daughter", and then goes out and murders a black person, the law takes the view that that person formed an independent decision to carry out the act of murder, and was not compelled by what he had heard. The law might also take the view that the person who uttered the cry was guilty of incitement, but it would not hold that person guilty of having conspired to commit murder or suborned others to commit murder.
It would be a different matter if a person went to another person, or group of others, in secret and said, "My daughter was raped by blacks, I want you to take revenge for me by killing some blacks, wherever you can find them". In that case the law would take the view that the first person had directly suborned others to commit murder, and therefore was guilty of conspiracy to murder and/or of being an accomplice to murder.