This assumes that there is a good faith characterization applied fairly to all speech which calls for violence. What you see in the United States is that this

This assumes that there is a good faith characterization applied fairly to all speech which calls for violence. What you see in the United States is that this characterization is applied in bad faith based on one's political motives, and ignored in other situations. There appear to be situations where "you need to fight" is taken literally when the speaker is an opponent, and taken metaphorically when the speaker is an ally. This is all happening outside of a legal process, so there is no mechanism to ensure that this is happening according to any standards or principles. If you bring speech laws into the conversation, those are applied within a legal system, which would be designed in some way to prevent the arbitrary application of standards. Charitable interpretations of the words of favoured public figures versus the worst possible interpretation of similar, perhaps even more benign statements, by public figures who are opposed. If there is an intention for laws to police speech, then they ought to be applied fairly, else they are the whims of whomever is in power to apply and enforce them. The media corporations (legacy and new) don't seem to be applying an equal standard to all speakers, which is their right, but it is important to discuss what happens when they exercise their rights in this manner.