The limitations of freedom of expression generate a current ongoing debate. This raises the question of the limits of freedom of expression, a debate that is more relevant than ever. In today's political climate, where extremism and polarizing statements contribute to the rapid spread of hate speech, the issue has become increasingly urgent. Therefore, this study aims to examine John Stuart Mill's (2011) harm principle and answer the question: ● Can the harm principle justify a restriction of freedom of expression to prevent hate speech? The study intends to investigate whether the potential damage that hate speech can cause is of such significance that it can justify a limitation of freedom of expression according to the harm principle. Through a normative argumentation analysis, arguments for and against the application of the principle are examined. This study identifies key challenges such as the vagueness of the harm concept, the risk of self-censorship, and the potential risk for state abuse of power. It also highlights the difficulty of consistently applying the harm principle due to context-dependent and subjective concepts, such as harm and hate. While some researchers emphasize the need to protect individuals from both psychological and physical harm caused by hate speech, the study raises concerns about the principle’s capacity to address these issues without jeopardizing democratic discourse. Ultimately, the results show that the harm principle does not provide a sufficient basis for restricting freedom of speech, as such restrictions risk undermining open debate and individuals´ rights to express themselves freely. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the delicate balance between safeguarding freedom of speech and countering harmful expressions in a democratic society.