The origins of freedom of speech can be traced as far back in history as the signing of Magna Carta in early 13th-century England.

King John, backed into a corner after recent defeats on the battlefield and disagreements with the Pope, was forced to negotiate with rebel barons who had captured the iconic Tower of London.

Those negotiations included a list of demands by barons citing earlier times when kings granted “ancient liberties” in the form of agreements to limitations of their arbitrary powers. The agreed terms in June 1215 were recorded as a charter of liberties, later to be known as Magna Carta.

The barons pledged loyalty to the king, and the king swore that he and his heirs would abide by the conditions of the Charter, “in all things and places for ever”.

In all things and places for ever.

By the end of the 13th century, Magna Carta officially became part of British law, to be referred to, interpreted and quoted in the courts and in parliaments of Britain and of countries that have adopted British law, including Australia.

Even in the United States, elements of Magna Carta infiltrate the Bill of Rights, which forms a key component of the US Constitution. In more modern times, the passing of the 1872 Parks Regulation Act gave the public the right to meet and speak freely at Hyde Park. That particular section of Central London is now popularly known as Speakers’ Corner and has hosted notable historical figures such as Marcus Garvey, C.L.R. James, Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, George Orwell and Kwame Nkrumah.

Speakers’ Corner was followed by offshoots in other parts of Britain as well as worldwide, with the Netherlands, Malaysia and Singapore among those who have created designated locations since the turn of the millennium.

Speakers may talk on any subject, and be challenged or heckled, as long as the police consider their speeches lawful. It is notable that there is no immunity from the law, but lawmakers and those who challenge free speech have to be absolutely certain a wrong has been committed.

That was proved not to be the case when Lord Justice Sedley found in favour of the appellants, in his decision regarding Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999). In determining that the arrests of three women preaching outside of a cathedral was unlawful, he described Speakers’ Corner as demonstrating “the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear”.

The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive, but extended also to “the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence”, and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive.

Offensive speech, especially on religious grounds, has led to cases where retribution is sought by those who feel offended — the Charlie Hebdo massacre on January 7 this year, when 12 people were killed by radicalised brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, being the most deadly.

The world joined France in mourning, not only for the dead but for free speech itself, and Charlie Hebdo overnight became a cause célèbre. Demonstrations in French cities were replicated all over Europe and continued in Washington and Australia.

Last month The Royal Gazette struck a blow for freedom of the press when it was given access to several affidavits that were sworn into evidence during the legal dispute between Michael MacLean and the Bermuda Government. What was ruled not to be in the public interest was redacted, while everything else in the affidavits was made public.

But while the Gazette had freedom to publish what was in those affidavits, it did not have the right to draw unfair conclusions based on their content that would cause undue hurt or harm to those named. Given how emotive that case and the furore over the Hamilton waterfront are, the comments section was withheld for the protection of the paper and others.

In litigation now are Bob Richards, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, and Jason Hayward, the president of the Bermuda Public Services Union, the latter being accused of impugning Mr Richards’s character during a live television broadcast in May in relation to the airport redevelopment deal with the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

A government minister against a union leader — that is sure to get the blood going; sure to further divide a public already terribly divided. More so when it was revealed that the minister’s legal fees would be funded by a public purse that is already under great strain.

But there comes a point when there are exceptions to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Mr Richards obviously believes this to be the case, thus the defamation lawsuit.

The Civil Rights Movement website gives a lucid explanation of how British society lives side by side with freedom of speech.

“The right to freedom of speech and expression is the building block of our society,” says the article title The Right to Freedom of Speech. “Anyone has the right to express themselves freely without fear of punishment from the government or from other individuals.”

It continues: “Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute rights; this means that there are exceptions to these fundamental rights. For example, publishing material or making comments that are specifically designed to incite racial hatred can be deemed to be a hate crime. Anyone who is found committing this offence can be charged in a criminal court. Many people argue that publishing a person’s opinion, even if it is offensive to others, is a right. However, if the material is intended to bring harm against others then that is an abuse of the victim’s other civil and human rights.”

The main exceptions to the rights of freedom of speech and expression are that the expressions do not endanger or harm others.

Civil Rights Movement adds: “Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental within our society. But, with rights come responsibilities and obligations. Using these rights responsibly is a necessity. This does not necessarily mean censorship, but there are consequences that should be considered when using the rights of freedom of speech and expression.”

On the face of it, and to “the little man”, the case of Richards versus Hayward smacks of Big versus Small, David and Goliath (better put, Goliath and David). But it still too soon just yet for Je suis Jason placards justifiably to be doing the rounds in the vicinity of Parliament Hill.