Today's Britain is experiencing a truly astounding series of challenges to what was previously considered, at the very least, an important principle: that the media should be free to publish stories on important public events. This doctrine has come under a severe battering thanks to a large law firm's efforts, attacking not only the media, but now, the very right of public institutions to foster debate for the purpose of establishing public policy.

A few days ago, a controversy exploded onto the Internet: that one of Britain's foremost newspapers, The Guardian, being prevented by a public injunction from reporting on a subject it could not reveal, barred by an injunction from a court proceeding it could not reveal, which concerned a question to be asked in an upcoming debate in Parliament that it could not reveal, but which it could reveal had something to do with the law firm Carter-Ruck. Intrepid bloggers, Twitter users, press freedom advocates and journalists rushed to pore through Parliament's schedule to find the source of the controversy: an upcoming Member of Parliament's question concerning a firm called Trafigura and injunctions banning reporting regarding alleged behavior by this firm in Africa. Carter-Ruck was the law firm defending it and was named in the proposed question.

Under the weight of an avalanche of criticism, the spectacular exposure of the underlying subject matter, and a complete battering of the firewall that was supposed to prevent anyone from hearing about the matter at all, Carter-Ruck, on behalf of Trafigura, gave up and asked the court not to enforce the order further prior to a scheduled hearing where The Guardian was to make its case before the judge. Twitter was the primary vehicle for this collective outrage.

While the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, it has a long overt tradition of freedom of the press. Unlike the United States, the U.K. does have explicit public secrecy laws that prevent the publishing of matters deemed harmful to national security, even if these matters have been leaked directly to the press. However, these are exceptions to an important general rule: the press is free to report on public issues. How can a question to be asked in parliament, which has been published for all to see, possibly be something other than the public's business?

As we have seen, the public itself made the issue its business. All this is well and good but, Carter-Ruck did not stop there.

An obscure parliamentary doctrine exists that establishes that a the discretion of the Speaker, Parliament will not interfere in a matter that is "sub judice," which refers to the judicial system, i.e. the courts, judges, and so forth.

Carter-Ruck has sent a letter to John Bercow, the current Speaker, declaring that the entire Parliamentary debate in question is "sub judice" because a court has issued a so-called "super-injunction" against it. This argument would use a judicial injunction that is no longer being enforced against the media itself (which as mentioned above, barred the media from even giving details of the injunction or the court that issued it) to ban parliamentary debate concerning Carter-Ruck and Trafigura.

Let me be clear: Blood has literally been spilt, and heads have literally rolled, to guarantee that Parliament has an absolute right to debate anything it wishes. The implication this maneuver suggests - that a court of law can issue an injunction banning parliamentary debate - is completely repulsive to the entire notion of an independent legislative branch, regardless of nation.

When a new session of Parliament is opened, the monarch is ritually banned from entry into the Commons Chamber to establish that this is not the monarch's place. The Speech from the Throne is made in the Lords Chamber rather than the Commons Chamber, for prior to the inauguration of this custom, the U.K. had an exceptional instance where a King had entered the Commons Chamber to attempt to arrest particular members for treason, only to find the members gone; the Speaker refused to divulge their location. This ritual demonstrates that no such behavior will ever be tolerated again; Parliament will be free to govern its own affairs as it sees fit.

What we see here is the glaring disadvantage of not having a written constitution. In recent years, the elected government itself has made efforts to erode the ancient right of habeas corpus, to no longer guarantee a trial by a jury of one's peers for all felony trials, and so forth. Today, even the notion of free speech by Parliament itself - where free speech by the media is much revered, if not free of all constraint - is under threat, all thanks to the courts not having an explicit set of instructions commanding them not to attempt any such madness.

In this case, not only is Carter-Ruck engaging in this open attempt at intimidation using the authority of the court without actually having the court on-board for it, but even were such a thing to succeed, it would only work because the Speaker personally accepted the claim as valid. Fortunately, Speaker John Bercow has more respect for himself, for Parliament, for freedom of speech, and for democracy itself to surrender to such bullying.

Notwithstanding this, the simple fact is, Carter-Ruck could attempt to completely obliterate the only absolute free speech Britain possesses because no one had a written rule saying it could not. This goes to show that if you give a law firm an inch, it will take a mile. Not even history, precedent, or public humiliation was enough to prevent this brazen attempt. Without a written constitution, only Parliament's sense of self-preservation stood between it and court-mandated silence.

Ultimately, only Parliament can protect its own freedoms; nothing else. Similarly, only the public can protect its own freedoms from law firms, the courts, and yes, even Parliament itself. For one spectacular day, the public did exactly that. Perhaps freedoms are like muscles; they need to be flexed once in a while to remain healthy and alive. The idea has remained the same, but the means have changed: where once, the people would have resorted to muskets, cannon, and bayonets to defend their freedoms, using underground newspapers to spread the written word, today's weapon of choice... is Twitter. Truly, a sign of our times.

(Follow JB on Twitter)