[Reelin]

The standard in the US is much more limited than your wording seems to imply. From the page you linked, the two key requirements are:

> (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action

> (2) is likely to incite or produce such action

That second one is an incredibly high bar. Also see a previous thread where this topic came up following the New Zealand incident (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924352).

[lsiebert]

My intention was to state that it was apparently a possibility under U.S. law, not to imply how likely that charge holding up in court would be.

But he did shoot up a synagogue and light a mosque on fire, so it might not be too far fetched that he was incited to do so.

[OJFord]

How are courts supposed to determine a priori likelihood?

And is it the likelihood pre or post incitement?

[Zak]

Pre, probably based on a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position. For example:

A provocateur is giving a speech to a crowd against someone or something. The crowd is agitated, and armed. The provocateur commands the crowd to go physically attack the target of their rage. A reasonable person would think that's likely to start a riot.

Someone posts on a message board filled with graphic descriptions of violence the posters purportedly intend intend to commit. The poster says they intend to kill [racial slurs] for the good of white people, start a race war, etc.... Another forum member, knowing that only one or two of the tens of thousands of posts of that nature has been connected to actual acts of violence replies "do it!". A reasonable person would not expect the poster actually planned to commit violence, or that their comment would change the outcome.