No. There is an extent, however, to which leaders are responsible for the actions of their followers.

They know what audience they're speaking to.

>Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it?

False dichotomy.

They have to not encourage their followers to commit violence against others.

The entire point of someone engaging in this would be plausible deniability; the ambiguity is a part of it.

>I'd have less of an issue if these rules

Which rules? It's not like we're discussing legislation here.

We're discussing a concept.

>a politically neutral fashion

Oh, how curious. Do you seem to imply that certain political groups are more likely to be accused of inciting violence against individuals or groups?

Perhaps with a documented track record of spikes in violence following public statements?

Hmmm.

Yes, like Maxine Waters committing "stochastic terrorism" against the Supreme Court.

Or maybe you're talking about BLM?