Kazakhstan has decided to \u201ccivilize\u201d the internet by introducing penalties for profanity online<\/strong>. The use of \u201cindecent language\u201d on online platforms may now lead to a fine, community service, or detention. This is no longer about prosecuting defamation, incitement to violence, or criminal threats. It is about penalizing the very form of expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At first glance, this may look like an attempt to \u201ccivilize debate.\u201d Anyone who has spent even a few hours on social media knows how easily discussion can turn into a sewer. That creates a temptation: since people cannot seem to learn basic civility on their own, perhaps the state should teach it for them. Yet this is precisely where the danger begins. Protection from verbal aggression can turn into control over language itself<\/strong>. Therefore, it can also become control over the way citizens express anger, rebellion, and dissent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The classic point of reference for liberal theories of freedom of speech is John Stuart Mill\u2019s harm principle<\/strong>. According to Mill, coercion against an individual may be used only to prevent that person from causing real harm to others. Offence, shock, or moral discomfort alone rarely meet that condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A profanity, as such, does not wound in a way comparable to physical violence, theft, or even an organized campaign of hatred. The problem begins when harsh language combines with incitement to violence, persistent harassment, or the creation of a lynch-mob atmosphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the state begins to punish the mere \u201cuse of profanity,\u201d it moves away from the logic of protection against harm and toward the logic of protection against offence<\/strong>, as described by Joel Feinberg. This principle allows certain restrictions on individual liberty. As a result, it can protect others from extreme, unavoidable experiences of humiliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFrom the harm principle to the offense principle<\/h2>\n\n\n\n