One was Mr. McIver's
privilege of free speech and another was the Legislative Assembly's privilege to regulate and discipline its members.
For those of us who do experience
the privilege of free speech, it's time for us to stand up for our virtual colleagues and help them draw attention to this situation.
Not exact matches
Unfortunately freedom
of speech is contingent to how much money you have given that the media is itself a business that has to make profits as well, so a «lobbyist» like this comes to this program without any ethics, without any remorse but with a lot
of money as well to openly acknowledge that: yes, we put money in this governor's elections, we are expecting he pay us back and will stand on our side
of the equation, and yes, we have collected (very fast) the private necessary money to run a public relations campaign (
of lies if necessary) to guarantee that our
privileges are well kept; and he finds a
free stand to speak out freely and without appropriate response As far as Liz, I'm not sure if it is only a being naïve issue.
If he were to take away that
privilege, it would be perfectly okay with me but completely counter to his beliefs regarding
free speech and the exchange
of ideas.
The document also recommends a range
of defences to protect
free speech: these would include lawful authority, necessity (to protect life, for example), consent, absolute
privilege (such as reporting court or parliamentary proceedings), the publication
of public documents, etc..
As per the English Bill
of Rights 1689, Art. 9, Mr. McIver argued that he had a parliamentary
privilege to
free speech (McIver, at para 46).
The Court concluded that the Legislative Assembly may limit its members» exercise
of free speech as part
of its own parliamentary
privilege (McIver, at para 51).