Think about it. How can calling for violence be violence? The violence is the violence, the calling for it is incitement.
Redefining terms like this is nothing more than subverting the truth to control a narrative.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
> limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for ... protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons.
The speech is not violent. However, we can say that speech that promotes such might not be allowed under "free speech."
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not violent though it can cause people to panic and cause harm.
People should be able to boycot people, free enterprises should he able to manage their media channels, the state should not.
That is not regulated in the capacity of speech.
>yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
That line is from a 1919 court case about whether you could oppose the draft.
>calling for literal violence against others
This is permitted under Brandenburg v. Ohio. Calls to illegal action are only prohibited if they are (1) intended to cause illegal action, (2) reasonably likely to produce such action and (3) imminent.
Violence is fundamentally a physical thing. Incitements to violence and threats of violence are bad, but they are not the same thing as violence.