People can say whatever they want without hurting anyone. In the case of incitement of violence, the issue is the person(s) who actually committed the violence, not a tweet online.
I'd compare "inciting violence" to a woman dressing in provocative clothing in a bad area of town late at night. Very few people would blame the woman and say she's legally responsible if she's attacked, I hold the same line on speech.
Say what you want, dress how you want, it doesn't matter. If another person actually causes harm they can't shirk the blame off on you, they made the choice to commit violence.
Notably you didn't engage with my analogy at all. Would you tell a victim of sexual assault that they were partly to blame based on their clothing choices or decision to be in a particular part of town a particular time of day? If not, how would you legally distinguish the two scenarios?
Incorrect. Nowhere did I say or imply that.
> your looking to who they may have listened to and what they may have heard such that some blame belongs there.
That is correct.
You seem to think there's a fixed amount of total blame X and if we assign even the tiniest amount of blame to one person, then the main perpetrator must get less blame than they otherwise would. Nothing I said implies that.
> Notably you didn't engage with my analogy at all.
That's because it's not an analogy, it's a strawman.
> Would how would you legally distinguish the two scenarios?
One of them is wearing certain clothes, the other is intentionally inciting hatred and violence. If you can't make that distinction, I don't know what to tell you.
Procedurally they require different actions to create or change. More fundamentally though, the constitution protects rights while laws limit them.