Using that logic you could argue that sending people to jail for things they have said isn't infringing on their freedom of speech, because you know, 'the tweets are still up and there's nothing stopping him from tweeting more, so he can say what he likes, but if he actually says it we're going to throw him in jail, and for any repeat offence we'll extend his term, but that's not infringing on his freedom of speech because he can still say it'.
That is literally the argument you are making, only taken to a slightly further extreme, but there's no principle in your reasoning why it couldn't be taken to that further extreme, and even if you reject that extreme other people won't and you'll have no logically consistent reasoning to argue against that except to say that it goes too far.
Whether people realise it or not (and frankly I think most do), at it's very core allowing things like what is happening to Folau is a direct threat to freedom of speech and expression because it sends the message to anybody that agrees with him that if they use their freedom of speech to express a similar opinion then they are liable to be treated the same way that he has been (i.e. in this case have their livelihoods destroyed), which then cows them into compliance with the majority by making them self censor, which effectively destroys their freedom of speech, and at the same time completely destroys the idea of individual rights and manufacturers radicals.
This sort of stuff is straight out of the authoritarians handbook, and the really sad thing is that my 'side' of politics are the ones doing it because in their arrogance they think that they will always dominate the public discourse as they do now, and therefore will always be the ones deciding what opinions are and aren't hate speech, and what and whom should or shouldn't be censored.
So yeah, your argument is just intentionally over-simplistic nonsense that's being used to excuse the deliberate attempt to silence those that disagree with you.
