It's an overt act of some kind toward carrying out the crime. For example, if you and your mates are chatting around the poker table, and you started discussing the best ways to assassinate Donald Trump, and discussed how much you want to do it, and how you would accomplish the task, that would only become criminal if you committed some sort of an act toward the commission of the crime.pErvin wrote:So it's the act of buying equipment which moves something from free speech to criminal territory? Sounds like a pretty arbitrary philosophy you've got there. What if they already have the equipment in normal everyday life (like axes, hammers, cars, and in the US - guns)? Why is it free speech to say that you want all black people dead, but not free speech if you say we should run over black people with our car?
It's like if you are conspiring with your friends to buy illegal marijuana. You can talk all you want about buying marijuana, where to buy it, how to buy it, how great it is to smoke it, etc., but unless you take a step toward committing the crime, it's not a criminal conspiracy. That's basic law in all countries descended from England and the UK.
It's not arbitrary, as it makes the distinction between "talking about doing something" and "doing something." You're allowed to talk about committing crimes.
It's free speech to say you "want" anyone dead. Black people. Donald Trump. Anyone. Why wouldn't it be?
It's also free speech to say you want to run over black people, or white people, or donald Trump, with your car. Here, "I want to run over Donald Trump with my car." Free speech. I own a car. Still free speech. Also, saying "I want so and so dead" is not a conspiracy at all, since just tellling someone what you want to do is not a conspiracy with them. However, if I make significant steps toward committing the crime, it could be an "attempt" to commit the crime.
These things are fact intensive - there can be a myriad "overt acts" that can show that the person is in process of committing the crime. The standard is, of course, that the overt act must be such that it can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." Saying "I want to run over donald trump with my car" is not, by itself, a criminal conspiracy for a couple reasons - a "conspiracy" involves two or more people, so an expression of desire to do something is not a criminal conspiracy - you can't "conspire" with oneself. Also, the fact that I own a car is not itself an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy because there is reasonable doubt as to what the car was gotten for.