Much has been made of Wallabies star Israel Folau's comment last week on Instagram that gay people needed to "repent of their sins and turn to God", or they would go to "HELL". In the context of widespread criticism, he followed up by citing a Bible verse suggesting he was being "persecuted for righteousness' sake".

Here again we have ill-advised comments causing all manner of controversy and hurt, subsequent to which the perpetrator of the ill-advised comments says they feel persecuted by those who respond.

Did Folau have the right to express his comments? Yes, he did. Free speech is alive and well in Australia.

Does he have the right to express those comments without consequences from those who are hurt or disappointed by such a clear expression of prejudice from a role model for young people everywhere? No.

Just as Folau has a right to free speech, so too do his critics.

States prohibit vilification on basis of sexuality

In the context of the recent debate in Australia about vilification laws, it would be interesting to consider whether Folau's comments might constitute vilification.

The now well-known federal racial vilification prohibition in section 18C only relates to race, not other grounds. However, many states and territories including Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania, prohibit vilification on the ground of sexuality.

Israel Folau's Instagram comment has landed him in hot water. ( AAP: Paul Miller )

Given that Folau's comments were made on social media, it is possible a complaint could be lodged in any jurisdiction that covers this ground.

What would be the likely success of any such complaint? My view is that it is unlikely the comment would reach the threshold of vilification, by which is meant that the comment was capable of inciting hatred in its audience against a member of the targeted group.

Folau in position of 'moral authority'

His comments are still of concern in so far as they disseminate prejudice by a person in a position of moral authority.

Added to that is the fact that Folau chose to put the word "hell" into capital letters, which is widely interpreted as the online equivalent of yelling.

More important than whether Folau has committed a legal transgression, however, is his identity as a role model for young boys and girls all over the country, who look up to him as a person who has achieved at the highest level of his sport, and who represents his country.

Like any human right, freedom of speech carries with it commensurate responsibilities. This applies to everyone.

The responsibility that attaches to freedom of speech is the responsibility not to use one's words, or one's position, to hurt others. And despite the nursery rhymes, we know now that words can hurt, and hurt badly.

Additionally, those who are fortunate enough to enjoy greater scope for freedom of speech, whose speech is more likely to reach a wide audience and carry more moral weight than that of ordinary members of the community, ought to be aware of this responsibility and be careful not to abuse it.

The responsibility that attaches to freedom of speech is the responsibility not to use one's words, or one's position, to hurt others. ( AAP Image: Dan Peled )

Folau has failed as a role model

Folau has failed to appreciate the special responsibilities he carries as a role model for young people everywhere.

He is entitled to his religiously influenced view. But as a role model and national sporting star he should not have chosen to air a view so imbued with prejudice on the stage that is social media.

The best take-home from all of this should be a greater appreciation of the fact that words matter, and that the more powerful the speaker, the more aware of this they should be.

Our role models need to learn to champion the responsibilities they take on, just as much as the freedoms they are accorded.

Professor Katharine Gelber researches freedom of speech, human rights and public discourse at the University of Queensland's School of Political Science and International Studies.