> Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.

Perhaps your point would be clearer if you indicated what specific conditions you believe are missing. Maybe the tweeter had no followers? Idk, I can only vaguely guess at what you're referring to.

So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.

You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though:

- investigation

- charging

- court process

all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.