Currently, various types of communication tools are used in social networks, including humorous memes. These have not been given the academic attention they deserve, despite the fact that they have been used to make innocuous jokes and to spread hatred and even to promote political campaigns and spread misinformation and fake news, all appealing to superficial defenses of freedom expression. Against this background it is worth asking if there are cases in which the damage caused by a humorous meme can justify some social intervention on individual behavior? Any position regarding freedom of expression, except an absolutist one, would agree. Indeed, when living in society we must try to respect and be respected, which implies limiting our individual behaviors. This does not imply, however, that all individual spontaneity should be restricted. In fact, if this were to happen, society would stop innovating and improving in every way. So it is necessary to establish a reasonable way to evaluate these communication tools as widely used as memes that does not violate too much the sphere of individual freedom, but that allows to properly sanction in some way inappropriate manifestations of freedom of expression. Nevertheless, these types of evaluations are few and not satisfactory. Hence, this work proposes a way to carry out such an evaluation based on the ideas of John Stuart Mill who was and is one of the greatest and most recognized defenders of freedom of expression and freedom in general, as well as doing an academic study concerning the phenomenon of Internet memes. Keywords: moral evaluation, freedom of expression, harm principle, criteria of harm, utilitarianism.