Under First Amendment jurisprudence speech which may incite to violence enjoys a wide constitutional protection, as long as it does not meet the criteria of the “imminent clear and present danger test”. My purpose is to suggest an alternative approach for legally curbing speech which incites to violence, based on foreign legal systems that adopt various restrictions on free speech. These limitations include criminal laws prohibiting expressions, which under certain circumstances would lead to violence. My aim is to use the Israeli experience in curbing dangerous threats and the legal ways adopted to combat this speech. I believe this paper presents a novel and original perspective, providing an alternative view of inciting expressions by suggesting placing a few narrow limitations on freedom of speech. This alternative is based on striking a proper balance between the exercise of freedom of speech rights and the need to protect potential victims of inciting speech against dangerous speech. This approach may sound antithetical to American jurisprudence, rendering the paper novel and original. Nonetheless, examining a different approach presents an interesting insight, which sheds a different light on the legal treatment of expressions, which incite to violence, providing an important contribution to existing legal scholarship.