I guess you are still pushing the line that Folau was guilty of hate speech, when it was nothing of the sort.

I never pushed that line, John.

I have 'pushed the line' that Folau is free, and should be free, to say what he wants.

What he's not free to do is sign a lucrative deal that has clear conditions and, when he breaks those conditions, cry, 'Free Speech!'. He freely chose to sign the contract, then he clearly broke the conditions of his contract.

Good advice being denounced as hate speech really is a one-way street.

Good advice or not. He 'tested the waters' before he signed the new contract. He knew what was acceptable and what was not acceptable to his employers and chose to call their bluff. Now, after freely agreeing to those conditions then breaking them, he's seeking to re-frame the dispute as a bogus free speech contest.

And, to use your term, the 'mindless' are falling for it.