Words matter.

So does the actual text of the law, when you’re talking about the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, which contains a number of important resolutions, and seems to simply expand the definition of various hate crimes to include “conspiracy to commit” whether completed or not.

Some people insist that “language evolves” (it does) and that their personal interpretation overrides generally accepted, current, dictionary definitions of words (I disagree, as do most of us who value clear communication).

In this case, I think you’re relying more closely on a dictionary definition — not wrong! — than on the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, itself (not that they necessarily conflict, but I think under the Act, two or more people could be found guilty of lynching — it doesn’t have to be a “mob”).

See https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/35/text for reference (this is for your readers, as well). I think that the resolutions at the beginning are important recognitions of past wrong-doings and the need for reconciliation; symbolic or concrete, they are long overdue (which you are not disputing here!)