> “fire” in a crowded theater,

This is simply not correct. This was a dum analogy by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a case about a draft protest. He later overturned his own opinion in that case expanding free speech.

> Libel and slander are already illegal speech, as is inciting violence

Libel and slander mean the same thing. You're thinking of libel and defamation. All of these are extremely narrowly defined in American law.

It's telling that people are swarming to point out the 1 'technically incorrect' entry in this list, whilst completely ignoring all the others.

Okay, I'll bite. Libel and slander aren't illegal speech; you can make a civil action for the damages connected to them, but they aren't outlawed and you won't face criminal prosecution. Unless you're in a jurisdiction with criminal defamation laws, which journalists and human rights activists have been fighting for decades. https://cpj.org/2000/09/calls-for-repeal-of-criminal-defamat...

Some jurisdictions have criminalized "hate speech", but the implementation and definition of this is haphazard, and the consequences are often negative, rebounding on communities that were originally intended to be protected.

The one you missed which is consistently forbidden across the world is CSAM.

> rebounding on communities that were originally intended to be protected.

We're starting to see proposals and legislation to include police officers as a protected group under hate crime/speech statutes. That's a hairsbreadth from lèse-majesté.

Protection laws in the US are an absurd and abused mess. I would only be mildly surprised to see minorities prosecuted for hate crimes for attempting suicide.

I take your point on the strict definition of 'illegal' speech. But if we're broadly talking about restricted speech, I think most people would happily include speech where you are likely to pay significant civil damages?

> as is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater

You really should stop spreading that falsehood. It was overturned over 50 years ago.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

It's still valuable for finding people who are arguing in bad faith. Here's another one: make sure that the person you're arguing with about taxes understands how marginal tax rates work.

People feel confident repeating things they've heard often, with a sarcastic smirk, because the ubiquity of the thing they're repeating gives them some security that if they're called on to defend those things, someone more knowledgeable will probably show up and help.

The most depressing and ironic thing is when a self-proclaimed socialist cites the "crowded theater" thing, which was used to jail socialists speaking out against a war.

> as is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater

A popular term from a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court decades ago.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

If you’re referring to US law, then yelling “fire” in a theater is indeed permitted under the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard.

It was never really prohibited, Holmes was just being "cute" and making an analogy to justify locking up a guy for protesting the draft.

> yelling “fire” in a crowded theater

this phrase will never go away, the fact that it stems from a 100 year old supreme court decision that used it as example why speech in opposition to the WWI draft was not protected free speech under the first amendment is still funny besides the fact that it was later overturned.