Where it is the role of society to adminster justice, to determine crime and to mete out punishments, then so too should speech that leads to the commission of crime be subject to those rules of society.
If someone walks into a bar, says "$5000 to the first guy who beats the shit out of that guy over there I don't like" and that guy gets the shit beaten out of him, a crime has been committed, and the agent provocateur of that crime should hold some accountability for instigating that crime at a criminal level, not just a civil one.
So what's your opinion on vengeful libel that ruins someone's career? What's your opinion on false rape accusations that lands someone in prison? How about swatting that gets someone killed?
Actions and speech are different things. Just like society and the state are different things. The latter can criminalize actions without criminalizing speech, it's incredibly simple and any potential unfortunate outliers resulting from someone ignoring the law is totally not something for a liberal to hand-wring about much like the whole guilty before innocent presumption also being "abused" by bad actors.
As for libel/defamation, you have no right to determine how others hold your reputation in
their minds. In any case it's usually a civil tort, not a crime, not even in the totalitarian hellhole that is the U.K. where until recently you were required by law to defend any libel/defamation claim against you. (See: David Irving for when doing this to make a quick buck goes horribly wrong.)
A false accusation that lands someone in prison and swatting that leads to a death are so hilariously off track from a free speech debate that I won't even pretend to take that nonsense seriously, especially if you aren't stopping to ask why you're ignoring the violent and incorrect actions of the state in both instances and instead thinking it justifies
further violent action by the state to remedy "society" in some way.
Just because criminalizing speech makes it easier for the state to imprison and punish people for their speech does not self-justify it as the correct and proper thing to do if we are decidedly pursuing liberal ends. It is in fact a set of illiberal means that can ultimately only come to serve illiberal ends.