I would point out that in constitutional law, in both Canada and the USA, it is decided by its proximity to violence, basically. The specifics vary, but that's

I would point out that in constitutional law, in both Canada and the USA, it is decided by its proximity to violence, basically. The specifics vary, but that's the core of it. The more immediately linked the speech is to violent illegal action, the more likely it falls outside constitutional protection. The American standard is called imminent lawless action [1], and so yes, openly encouraging a murder that might realistically happen can be illegal, and so is encouraging rioters to riot harder. Canada uses the same basic framework, with a somewhat less strict threshold for immediacy which is how laws there about inciting hatred squeak by constitutionally, while they don't in the USA. Still not quite sure where the line should be, but such criteria seems like how we should decide where it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action