> I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.

> Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.

I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't be nothing.

- intent

- imminence

- likelihood

If the UK had speech protections like the US (which I wish they would) then it would fail the imminence and probably the likelihood tests (you rightly note that it is ineffective).

[1] https://uslawexplained.com/incitement

I think that puts the likelihood-factor at zero.

> 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.

That's terrorist speech tho. My problem is that everyone can reasonably get on board with banning speech that indicates violent action, and that the reliance on "muh free speech!!!" has been a net negative for actually defending the right of people to have privacy, because people rely on that sans any other (better) arguments.