Everybody needs to stop using "fuelling violence" as an argument for censorship. Of course, you're free to say it like you're free to say any asinine thing; but, you're just making an idiot out of yourself.
The people who were legitimately inciting the genocide in Rwanda used phrases like, "Clear the bush." Anything, in a certain context, can fuel violence.
Compare "Clear the bush." to Kathy Griffin posing with Trump's severed, bloody head. Are you gonna say that Kathy Griffin should be jailed for that? Some of people shared an image of Trump blowing his brains out a couple years ago.
What's your argument? Is it that all speech that might be interpreted after the fact as fuelling violence should be banned? Good luck with that. You might be jailed for asking the gardener to cut out the weeds if you have any understanding of history. Are you going to say, as I assume most of you who use this argument would, that it's okay to fuel violence against the right people? So, now you're convinced that you're the person who finally figured out ethics in their entirety.
I think that it's reasonable and clear to argue that direct and credible threats could fall outside of free speech protections; but, even the guy who defended the right of Nazis to march on Skokie acknowledged that possible restriction.
Restricting speech that "fuels" something is just lazy, ridiculous, and dangerous. That is the greased precipice.