These are trials we are talking about. We don’t have to believe everything that is said. We can let a jury look at the situation and make a decision. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider any Beatles lyrics to be instructions to murder. A reasonable person could interpret some hate speech as instructions for murder.
>Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and musician who led the Manson Family, a cult based in California, in the late 1960s. Some of the members committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
Besides, the history of the legal system is rife with instances of juries going along with prosecutorial bullshit.
That isn't how that works. The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.
No, but they can find someone guilty without reference to what the prosecution says.
Neither the jury, nor the prosecution, nor me, nor even (likely) you believes that Manson was convicted solely on the basis of hypothetical speech.
Tex Watson testified that Manson explicitly ordered the Tate killings.
Manson was physically present at the scene of the LaBianca killings, and actually entered the house (again, according to Watson).
Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?