Drawing meaning through derivatives (of writings and sayings)

When someone was not talking directly either responsibly or irresponsibly (attribution-wise), what is the meaning that the person was saying or writing? Stalkers and gossipers would argue it is in their conviction, but a person could have hierarchies of convictions. So based on the gossipers and bully's culture they would consider whatever they deemed to be the meaning as the meaning, as long as it is a person's conviction. 

This is why in Christianity God is the one who sees the heart, humans are to judge just by the result. When comes to "conviction", a person might had emotional conviction in what he / she illustrated, but if such person was, for example, acted in a discipline that always prioritized their "Rule conviction", maybe they were religious, or maybe they commited to lawfulness, it would be painting a wide brush to say that such emotion was what they mean when "the rule" could mean another. Moreover I don't think types of convictions are few, should be many.

However such logic could only improve derivation not complete it. So the best thing is to reconfirm or to ask the person again. When an art or an illustration or a humor was done responsibly, inherently it would be within context to inquire on the meaning of such product, irresponsible ones would require an out of context invokation of inquiry of the thing, which burden the inquirer. But, some people might not realize what other people contexts were, and some people were just choosing not to comply to such contexts.

-------------------------------

Here therefore a logical problem, when could one refuse a context? When could one refuse some contexts while still speaking? I'd say you should always be able to do that as long as your conviction and your actions statistically speaking, or your discipline follows your preferred context always. Of course the primary context or the basic wording of the speech is the context, that's the extent of one's responsibility is it not?

Here's another logical problem, whose responsibility was it when some secondary or tertiary context were habitual or cultural for a group of people? Whose responsibility was it to always consider them when talking? The problem is these contexts are unlimited actually with ever changing orders of importance. I'm not one of you, I should have the right to be considered just as a member of the public, please relieve me of this uncalled for obligations.