How about the opposite where actual dictators are allowed to incite and not get taken down? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/09/18/twitter-sa...

Paywalled, cannot read, sorry.

> No one acted violently after reading your comment, but people did act violently after reading Trump’s Twitter.

Consider this example.

John fired Andrew from the job. And told him, please do whatever you want to get your job back. Andrew took his shotgun and killed ten top managers.

Deaths of ten people is a direct consequence of John actions. John actions might be irresponsible, but was not inciting violence.

Same way Capitol hill events were a direct consequence of Trump actions, but Trump did not incite violence.

It happens all the time. Possibly a majority of all twitter bans over the last 5 years fit that description. Say racist thing like "Muslims should stay out of the USA" get banned by twitter for "inciting violence against a protected group".

In a way, all political advocacy consists of incitement of violence. Any law not ultimately backed up by the credible threat of violence is just a suggestion. If you don't pay your taxes for long enough, eventually federal agents with guns will come to take you to jail, and if you resist, they'll kill you.