So when I see news articles that say how freedom of speech is being exploited, I strongly disagree, but I don’t file an FIR because the person who has written that article is free to do so and freedom can’t be exploited. Freedom is something that can’t be exploited because it is freedom, not a clause with terms and conditions. The entire concept of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is fundamentally on the idea that you can express anything you want in public. There will obviously be people who will strongly disagree with you but no one can stop you from articulating what you feel.
If one encourages not hanging a terrorist, he gets criticized as an activist fed on foreign funds. If one debates for the hanging, the 'activists' do not hesitate in slamming him as a bloodthirsty traditionalist. So this basically concludes how people will always have something to oppose to your statement, no matter how reasonable your statement is or how their statement shows the one-digit difference in their IQ and room temperature.
Contrary to popular belief, freedom doesn’t have a moral value. Freedom itself implies choosing between the good and the bad. Just because you get offended by something doesn’t mean it should immediately be censored out. The fundamental right to freedom of speech is bound to be twisted into an unpleasant thing. I can’t name one instance where people haven’t made the most pleasant thing unpleasant.
There are many instances like extremists debating for separation of a state which has made our political and social situation more difficult, but labelling those occurrences ‘misuse’ or ‘abuse’ implies curbing the right to freedom of speech which defies the purpose of freedom of speech.
Though I do not disagree with the fact that our thought process shouldn’t be ignored while delving too deep into the right of freedom of speech. We should think twice before we express our views. Stupid things that people put on the internet will mostly not be taken to the heart but will definitely be made fun of.