It's nice that you're familiar with a story from England in 1170, but no, you don't just get automatically blamed in the US when crazy people do things in response to dumb things you said on Twitter.
Regardless, even if you did get blamed, missionlocal is not the impartial jury who gets to decide whether or not quoting 2pac is incitement to violence.
---
But tying this potential legislation to the message Tan communicated to his 408,000 Twitter followers would appear to be a serious legal challenge: Half a dozen lawyers and judges told Mission Local that, however ill-advised, Tan’s comments do not rise to the legal definition of a death threat.
Under Penal Code 422, a person making a criminal threat must harbor “specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat…”
“It is offensive, but it is speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Berkeley School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It does not meet the standard for incitement.”
---
"This is a fairly standard and boring way of dressing up censorship as something high-minded."
Do you think that speech is not an act? That speech does not have any consequences in the world, and so should be free from all restriction? That's certainly not the law in the US, and you seem to be aware of incitement to violence.
"missionlocal is not the impartial jury who gets to decide whether or not quoting 2pac is incitement to violence."
Please quote where missionlocal decides that is incitement to violence. You are accusing missionlocal of hack journalism where it is simply reporting what happened. You may not think Garry Tan should get heat for doing what he did, but you should not place your ire on the journalists who are reporting what is by any reasonable definition a story within their purview.
I am not saying that they're hack journalists because they literally accused Tan of incitement to violence (that would probably be libel). I'm saying they're hacks because the article (and the prior one) were full of irrelevant details about Tan, while ignoring nearly all of the details about the actual incident. Tan is not the core of the story, unless you've lost all perspective on your job as a journalist.
It's like reporting on a robbery, but making most of your article about Karl Marx because the criminal was reading a copy of Das Kapital. The only way you get to that point is to blame Marx for the actions of the criminal.
Some unhinged person sent a threat of violence to politicians, using Tan's tweet. That is the story. Tan's liquor cabinet, his history of political donations, his wealth...all of that is irrelevant.
YES
(Other than incitement of violence and libel)
It's called stochastic terrorism you dense moron