To casual observers, it might seem ridiculous to face punishment for ridiculing a politician who has done something ridiculous.

Parliamentary shenanigans are ripe for satire, and by and large in a free country there is nothing to stop anyone mocking, deriding or lampooning political foolishness — within reason, taste and the laws of defamation.

Shaun Micallef pokes fun at pollies on ABC TV's Mad as Hell and Charlie Pickering gives our elected representatives a hurry up on The Weekly.

So why is someone potentially in hot water for getting stuck into Queensland LNP MP Jarrod Bleijie on social media?

Advertising executive Dee Madigan tweeted vision of Mr Bleijie pretending to rip up the sessional orders during an argument with the Government about sitting hours.

"Your taxes at work, a toddler tantrum from @jarrodbleijiemp," she commented.

The same vision had already gone to air on ABC News with no ramifications, but Mr Bleijie wrote to the Speaker, who referred Ms Madigan to Queensland parliament's Ethics Committee — which is rare for a member of the public.

That sparked an outpouring of support, general bewilderment and a flurry of defiant retweeting by people who thought free speech was under attack.

There are rules for showing the workings of parliament

Ms Madigan had declined requests to delete the tweet by the Clerk of the parliament and the Speaker, who warned her that she may have broken the strict rules, which govern not just political reporters but anyone who wants to show what happens in parliament.

"The further publication of the broadcast of proceedings not be used for satire or ridicule," Speaker Curtis Pitt explained.

Jarrod Bleijie wrote to the Speaker about Dee Madigan's tweet. ( AAP Image: Dan Peled )

It may not be widely known that the public's right to see and hear their MPs in action is limited by the terms and conditions of broadcast, which stipulate "fair and accurate reports of proceedings with the aim of informing the viewers about the work of the Legislative Assembly".

Eyes may roll but the parliament is serious about maintaining the dignity of the house.

That's why the ABC didn't get into trouble for a straightforward report about Mr Bleijie's paper-shredding stunt.

But parliamentary vision and audio must not be used for "political party advertising or election campaigns; satire or ridicule; or commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising".

In other words, ridiculing Queensland MPs may be OK in some circumstances, but using their own parliamentary vision against them to do so is not.

So on the face of it, Ms Madigan faces a potential reprimand or fine, not because she scoffed at Mr Bleijie, nor because she tweeted the vision, but because she did both at the same time.

A defiant Ms Madigan said that was petty, and warned parliamentarians about the "Streisand effect" (unintentionally drawing more attention to something by trying to remove it).

That may be something she elaborates on in her submission to the Ethics Committee.

"All the MPs tweet out the parliamentary footage of themselves and people share it and comment on it, it's standard practice," she also said.

That last bit may be slightly off the point — comment is one thing, ridicule is another, when parliamentary vision is involved.

But Ms Madigan does highlight a problem that the parliament may have to come to grips with — restricting the republication of something that's gone viral on social media is not just like herding cats, it's like herding people who are all trying to herd cats.

It's been suggested that the imbroglio could have been avoided if Mr Bleijie had rolled with the punches and not bothered telling the Speaker about Ms Madigan's tweet, but the member for Kawana doesn't tend to take that sort of thing lying down.

Now it's up to the MPs on the committee to decide if Ms Madigan has committed a contempt of parliament, and if so what action to take against her.

Then the free speech debate will flare up again, ridiculous or otherwise.