1):There is no requirement that the words or ideas need to be expressly intended for something to be speech. That idea has been explicitly rejected on multiple occasions. 2) The code itself did not cause harm; it didn't physically kill someone. The code resulted in the expression of harmful ideas.

You simply can't get to the harm without the content of the output. And while I understand it's frustrating to think that maybe nobody can be held liable under doctrine as it stands, I think that the reliance on output not being speech at all indicates that this theory is an end-run