It is true that what is deemed socially acceptable by the majority naturally shifts over the years. Hopefully in a direction of social progress (which I think it generally has). But, I think its fine for people to call certain speech "irresponsible" if that's what they believe. If people don't say what they think is right and wrong, where does progress come from? Some may go further in forcing people to not express their views openly, through various forms of intimidation. It may be threats of force or perhaps organizing boycotts. I'm not comfortable with these intimidation tactics in response to free speech either, even when they're not explicitly violent. Its not my place to punish them, just because I disagrees strongly on what they're saying. But if they say things which I think isn't simply wrong but also irresponsible, then I believe they and others they're trying to reach out to should be aware of that.
I don't have any problem in calling out speech you disagree with. But when you are calling it irresponsible, what are you saying? That they are responsible for the consequences? Is it like yelling fire in a crowded theater, which is not protected speech? I think not. Once we go down that path then we can have arguments to limit the speech. It's only being called irresponsible because two extremists tried to go on a murder rampage. No one called it irresponsible speech before the attack. I'd rather just call it hate speech, stupid, extremist, etc. Irresponsible is too close to blaming the victim, as if she's responsible for what other people do on response
I think I understand what you're saying. But when I say "irresponsible", I don't mean that to suggest anything about the person's responsibilities under law. There are any number of things that can rightly be labeled "irresponsible" even if a law isn't technically broken. For example: parents not knowing where their children are in the middle of the night, or someone who thoughtlessly cast a vote in an election without really taking the time to considering the issues. In both those examples, these people are being irresponsible, and that fact doesn't change just because it comes back to bite them later. It doesn't mean their rights as a parent or voter should be revoked, or that they "deserve" what happens as a consequence, or that they have any kind of legal responsibility over it.
If you're asking about the legal standard of incitement, they would have to say something like "let's go outside and kill those Muslims who are protesting." As far as First Amendment protection they can call for violence against Muslims as long as they are not encouraging imminent lawlessness (let's kill them here and now). Ethically speaking, I think Geller is implicitly encouraging violence by promoting the hatred of Muslims. I don't think she would explicitly advocate violence because even the furthest on the right would question her motives in defending "free speech." People have been calling Pam Geller's opinions (your kind aren't welcome in our country) irresponsible and hateful long before the attack occurred. She's a nobody to the average American but most Muslims knew of her opinions. Her scheduling the event in Dallas was at a center where a Muslim event was held months prior. Not many want Geller to be censored for her inanity. That doesn't mean we should agree with her that she's doing society a favor in "standing up for the 1st Amendment." She's just as useless as Westboro Baptist, although we should be proud that our government allows people to be senseless. Public opinion is her punishment.
I see where you are coming from, though I don't think the analogies work exactly. Children you can expect not be able to care for themselves. In voting you expect to have to do research. But I don't think we should "expect" violence for political events, no matter how hateful. But good conversation nonetheless.
