I'm of a similar mindset but don't hold such extreme views.

Allow me to try to provide some justification for the items you listed.

The types of pornography that are made illegal (here we are talking about America, you would get my agreement about recent laws passed in the UK) are snuff films - rape and child pornography or pornography that permanently disables or disfigures the subject - because they do necessarily hurt the subject. Once the pictures/videos are already taken, they continue to hurt the victims as their suffering is publicized and available to the fantasy of clients (and of course they won't see any proceeds), and this media will hurt future victims by institutionalizing a demand for new content. Limits on pornography (despite what religion institutions yell loudly about) are not about harm to customers but harm to subjects.

With exceptions for torture, humiliation, dismemberment and execution (including the same to animals) I won't defend obscenity restrictions as the arguments are quite different than those for restricted forms of pornography. These listed exceptions of course are great examples of harm coming from obscene content and again are illegal (though lacking in the case of animals) under obscenity laws under the harm principle.

Other forms of obscenity restrictions seem to me to fall directly in line with the offense principle and should not be restricted. Take for example the Supreme Court decision Miller v. California. The resulting 'Miller Test' for obscenity decisions:

1. Whether the average person would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a lewd curiosity;

2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Compare this test against Mill:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Obscenity, when it is victimless, and it is almost always victimless, clearly fails the harm principle test. For the most part, this is the case in America. There are cases where obscenity laws prevent things such as expressions of homosexual affection, for example, and it is harder to find clear victimhood in these cases even when the law agrees to prohibit them. A note that this Supreme Court decision was made by a conservative majority court.

Regarding sedition I understand your point - that speech critical of the power elite ought to be protected in the strongest terms. I have a lot to say with regard to restrictions on sedition. I'll advocate for a devil for a blurb and then comment briefly in an attempt to sum up more than I can defend into a few sentences.

With very few exceptions (the velvet revolution?), successful seditious overthrow of a ruling class and/or government have in almost every single case caused great harm both to the ruling class and to those who are caught adrift in the following power vacuum. Furthermore the ruling class/governance structure have to be convinced that alternatives to their administration is harmful. Other mechanisms for change are (supposed to be) available in Western democracies so that seditious change is not necessary, as the JFK quote "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." One additional item - I can't actually find (in America) a modern use of sedition laws, though I merely performed an internet search.

Summing more than I can defend into a few sentences: presumably if a government were harming its citizens (the power elite abusing their position) this is a prior wrong and in alignment with the JFK quote violent revolution is inevitable. Presumably at the point where seditious speech is required for freedom from government by implication the government is unjust and its laws - those restricting seditious speech and otherwise - hold no justifiable weight.

In short I agree with you very wholeheartedly regarding sedition.

Because this is getting long, and because your analysis for the final items occupy a similar space - allow me to respond to them in tandem.

You suggest in the final five (trade secrets, NDAs, public order, security and nuisance) that harm may in fact be done to specific individuals - those whose income relies on the keeping of certain secrets/formulas/processes, or those who occupy certain streets/neighborhoods/townships - but that additional harm can be done to other individuals (dissidents and political activists) by a state seeking to weaponize these laws and to abuse them. I would suggest here that the problem is not with the laws but with the abuse. Any law can be abused by the state to harass or detain critics. The worry here is that by targeting laws that protect the public security ("fire!") one would throw the baby out with the bath water.