Heartening to see a more realistic discussion on a very important topic. We must never allow the devolution of our right to speak our minds or communicate freely, even if doing so offends.
It is a fool who believes that everyone is of the same opinion, so we will never have consensus on anything.
The fact that there are people out there who are so sensitive to the realities of life, matters not to me.
In the real world, and that of the animal kingdom, the weak are killed and this is how the species becomes stronger and healthier.
We as a species have taken a subjective approach to life and not an objective one.
In defense of humanity itself, I do not care if the weaker (mentally) of the human race decide to kill themselves over comments or attitudes of others.
The stronger and more pragmatic of our species will survive and prosper, and that is the way of nature and the way it should be.
By pursuing this new PC mantra, we are doing mankind a dis-service, and if allowed to continue will be harmful to future generations.

To Banjo.

Freedom of Speech is hardly "important" if you decide that it does not apply to anyone who criticises a particular group of people that you believe should be beyond criticism. It is exactly like totalitarian governments saying that they believe in freedom of speech, provided that their citizens do not criticise their governments, or their government's policies.

The only limits on freedom of speech within democratic societies on any subject involving social, religious or political issues, is by common agreement, libel, the Official Secrets Act, and incitement to violence. The issue of freedom of speech is a done deal in western societies. What we are seeing today is leftist authoritarian reactionaries removing the most important right of free people to speak their minds. Just like in the totalitarian countries they admire, they want to prevent citizens from criticising any group of people which the leftists consider part of their support base. And you think that is OK? What is wrong with you? What if the situation was reversed and a right wing government brought in laws to prevent any citizen from criticising gun owners or One Nation supporters? You would be screaming your head off that this was first order oppression from a government that was losing it's moral authority to rule.

Your next premise, was that restrictions on freedom of speech already exist in law in certain states so then this must be OK. That is exactly like saying that it is perfectly moral for the Communist party of the Soviet Union to stop it's citizens from criticising the politburo. After all, it is Soviet law, so it must be moral.

Israel Folau has just as much right to criticise homosexuals in an "aggressive" manner as you do to criticise the groups of people that you don't like in whatever "aggressive" manner you wish. Unless you can grasp this most fundamental concept of a free society, then I can only say that you have either been poorly educated, or you are intellectually challenged.

Choose sides, Banjo. Either side with the democrats, or side with the reactionary totalitarians.

Will it never end?

Now the breweries are going to stop sponsoring and the Sex Workers United have decided to stop attending to football players at Buck's Nights.
Some of the Christian Churches, notably the Catholics, are also considering dropping football and all because some footy player spoke out about his beliefs.

In the immortal words of Xavier Herbert, "Poor fellow my country..."

Kaepernick is now suing the National Football League of the United States. His suit contends that he was denied employment because no team hired his services in spite of the fact that he was demonstrably more talented than some of the players who were hired. He contends he was denied employment because of his exercise of free expression. Whether he had a right to be hired or the teams had a right not to hire him will be determined in court. Australia courts may or may not be influenced by the decision.

Dear davidf,

With the greatest respect I'm afraid I'm going to have to flag that some may well consider your stance absolutist, including I will confess me.

You and I both support the Black athletes in their protest, however I don't support forcing the owner of any franchise to employ them if they choose not to do so.

The suit that Kaepernick and Reid brought against the owners and the NFL has been settled out of court. The difficulty for the players of course was that they had to prove collusion. The fact this isn't going to trial is indicative they did no have a strong case.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001018051/article/nfl-kaepernick-reid-decide-to-resolve-pending-grievances

However if there had been a provable case of collusion then I fully support any applicable sanctions being brought to bear. However in the case of Folau he is only dealing with a single corporate body who have made what is a most likely a financial decision to protect its brand.

And surely there is the question of how we define free speech. Folau hasn't been denied the ability to speak to whomever he wishes it is just that Rugby Australia has decided not to be an enabler, to take away the trumpet they had supplied him through his involvement in the sport they husband.

But even putting that aside you might be bringing and American sensibility to an Australian issue. I acknowledge the US do not have hate speech laws and when asked in a poll; “Would you support or oppose a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments that advocate genocide or hatred against an identifiable group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation?” only 36% approved, although over 50% of Democrats did.
http://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws

Here we have a series of different laws addressing hate speech both Federally and with the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia#Federal

So I submit there are factors which permit you to perhaps take more nuanced view if you wanted.

Can't agree SR.

To me it looks like a sponsor & in particularly that sponsors CEO throwing their weight around, rather than the code protecting it's brand.

Obviously the management of union is a pretty B grade gutless mob, who can be easily bought to the detriment of the platers.