Simply calling attention to or criticizing people doesn't meet the standard for incitement to violence, and it only takes a moment's thought to understand why someone who isn't calling for violence cannot be held responsible for the actions of the violent fringe.
This is the same reason that people who criticized Brett Kavanaugh's appointment and jurisprudence are (rightly) not held responsible for the man who was arrested outside his home for attempting to assassinate him.
One difference here is that lots of people criticized Brett Kavanaugh while one individual undertook to commit violence against him (before turning himself in when he arrived at his destination; his case is still pending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_assassination_...).
In contrast, a Twitter account with a lot of followers that has a habit of calling out specific people/institutions for being 'woke' has a following that has yielded multiple different bomb threats over the last couple of years; I think this is the 9th or 10th such incident, with many more incidents of general harassment (about 60). If it's happening so frequently that it becomes predictable one wonders why the person in question hasn't made any effort to dissuade followers from engaging in such activity.
That's my core question, and I am honestly curious about it: Aside from whether someone is intending to incite action (although I think a lot of these accounts are), at what point are they obligated to limit their free speech because someone else will more-or-less-reliably be incited by it? Is there any US jurisprudence around that question already?
This is the same reason that people who criticized Brett Kavanaugh's appointment and jurisprudence are (rightly) not held responsible for the man who was arrested outside his home for attempting to assassinate him.