Incitement is already unprotected speech outside the scope of the first amendment and it has elements. (1) intended to produce imminent lawless action, and (2) likely to produce such action.

The "imminency" requirement is the most developed term in modern jurisprudence.

So let's say some glowie gets a bunch of white supremacists together at a rural ranch and says we should "take revenge on the government if they continue to suppress the white race", that's not incitement because of no imminence.

However, if the KKK got in front of a black rape suspect's home and they say "let's burn down his house!" then that's incitement.

To answer your question more directly, as long as courts view what a "reasonable" person would likely construe as calling to violence, then we're good. But you have a point long term if we lose a culture war, because societal standards about what is "likely to produce" such action can change