Purposely whipping people into a riotous fenzy is not what happened here.
General human interaction cannot be viewed as purposeful incitement to riot.
A riot is a specifically defined event which in most cases results in violence or loss to others who were never involved.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
Obviously, people who solicit murder but do not actually commit the violence of that crime are also held accountable for their participation in its planning.
Simply interacting with other people, even if that action is harsh, less than friendly, rude cannot be considered the same. Even abuse has to be established over a period of time before it can be used as any sort of viable defense against action taken to stop said abuse.
Nor did I say it was. I was only using that example to illustrate that even under the law there is a recognition that people can be held accountable for the actions of others that they influence.
"General human interaction cannot be viewed as purposeful incitement to riot."
No, but the very word, "interaction" presupposes the notion of stimuli and response. It suggests that any and all human interaction will influence, modify or change the behavior of either party involved, as opposed to the behavior that would have occurred sans the interaction. Those modified behaviors may be as slight as an acknowledging glance or tip of the hat to a much more formal, elaborate interchange, but in either case both parties involved influence the behavior of one another. Being cognizant that our interactions with other people will influence their behavior, attitudes, emotions etc., we assume a moral responsibility (morality being that which governs our interactions with others) to make our best effort to make those interchanges positive. That's why when somebody says, "Good Morning," responding in kind is a much more viable option than punching them in the nose, or ignoring them altogether. Intentionally ignoring somebody to slight them or to knowingly make them uncomfortable may be perfectly legal. I would argue that it is unabashedly immoral, knowing we would not want to be treated in that manner.
"I think you are comparing apples to oranges."
Again, I was making no such comparison, merely illustrating that the law recognizes that under certain circumstances persons may be held accountable for influencing the behavior of others, and while jurisprudence requires strict definitions and standards of proof, general morality simply breaks down into "right" or "wrong."
"Simply interacting with other people, even if that action is harsh, less than friendly, rude cannot be considered the same."
From a strictly legal perspective you are 100% correct; We may find them to be legal or illegal based on the application of numerous criteria and contextual circumstances. From a moral perspective however, every interaction with others is either moral or immoral, "right" or wrong," and what is legal may not always be moral. This is especially true when and where governments become increasingly corrupt and pass corrupt laws.
"Even abuse has to be established over a period of time before it can be used as any sort of viable defense against action taken to stop said abuse."
Suppose that arbitrarily, the law says it must have five documented instances of abuse before a child can be removed from a home. Does that make the five undocumented cases ok? Is it ok if the abuser stops at four? Again, the law in those instances holds no account since the condition it sets (i.e. five documented cases) has not been met. Morally however, any abuse, documented or otherwise, is unacceptable.