Normally to be covered under "incitement", it has to be a call for imminent unlawful behavior.
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify:
>“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”
Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.
And now we wait.
Generalized calls to violence are perfectly legal and have been a part of American political culture for centuries. Sometimes it's much hotter than others (the 1960s were pretty hot), but so it goes. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't agree with these statements or these cards, but people have a right to say it.