I dunno if it meets your definition of legal, but "The EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online" seems to largely hinge around putting in effort to combat such things. The companies don't have to show that the measures are foolproof, they just show that they're making an effort.

To a lawyer? Yes. I'm pretty sure a lawyer can easily search through all the business law and "Trivially" find case laws connected to words.

We're not talking about logical inference, we're talking about CYA.

The law usually asks for people to take reasonable steps to protect others, not impossibly perfect steps.

It seems more like banning specifically stabbing, shooting, strangulation and blunt impact rather then murder in general, and then just allowing killing by pushing out of windows because people figured out that it's not covered by existing laws. But no one important seems to be kicking up a fuss right now, so well allow it, as the lack of fuss is the key thing thing here.

Not that I think going on a thorough mission to avoid anyone even being able to refer to the concept of death is an especially useful thing to do. It's just that goal here appears to be to "keep the regulators out of our shit and the advertisers signed up". And they'll be mostly happy with a token effort as they don't really care as long as it doesn't make too many headlines that look bad even to the non-terminally online.