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?