So... I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't meet the incitement standard.
Did you read the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ? He literally stood in front of a group of clan members with inflammatory speech, and had his case overturned.
This lady directed them to destroy specific things and they acted on it within 30 minutes.
That sounds a lot more immanent and lawless to me than the facts in Brandenburg, where he merely said a bunch of racist things to KKK members and spoke vaguely about "revengeance" against persons unclear, without any specific target or any riot going on.
Now, you have a point that we might have to establish that some of those who participated in this listened to her, but that's a factual question that should be investigated by the police.
The fact that someone is intentionally directing rioters to do a specific illegal thing during a lawless riot and this lawless act is performed should be more than enough to investigate her for incitement.
Did you read the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ? He literally stood in front of a group of clan members with inflammatory speech, and had his case overturned.
This lady directed them to destroy specific things and they acted on it within 30 minutes.
That sounds a lot more immanent and lawless to me than the facts in Brandenburg, where he merely said a bunch of racist things to KKK members and spoke vaguely about "revengeance" against persons unclear, without any specific target or any riot going on.
Now, you have a point that we might have to establish that some of those who participated in this listened to her, but that's a factual question that should be investigated by the police.
The fact that someone is intentionally directing rioters to do a specific illegal thing during a lawless riot and this lawless act is performed should be more than enough to investigate her for incitement.