The Legal and Jurisprudential Boundaries Separating Legitimate Expression from Abuse in the Right to Permissible Criticism, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration, and Their Implications for the Establishment of Civil Lia

Abstract

This research is a comparative, analytical and critical study of the criteria distinguishing between legitimate expression, which is protected by both laws and Sharia, and its abusive use in three areas: permissible criticism, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and demonstrations. The research uses a three-dimensional comparative analysis based on Iraqi law with its legislative and judicial texts, Islamic law with its authentic sources and universal principles, and Iranian law with its constitutional, press and penal codes. The problem posed by this research stems from the ambiguous formulation of the limits of these freedoms in the three systems and the lack of specificity in the legislation defining the distinction between the two concepts, as well as the problems related to the grounds for exemption from civil liability . In this research the descriptive, analytical, and comparative methods were used in the survey and analysis of texts, and the critical method was used in assessing systems, shortcomings, and proposed solutions. This research has revealed several fundamental aspects, including: good faith and factual reliability are the most profound common criterion for distinguishing between permissible criticism in the three systems; Iraqi law suffers from a legislative vacuum in regulating the freedom of the press and freedom of demonstration; Islamic jurisprudence contains specific and detailed criteria for regulating speech, which are more detailed and profound than many of the positive laws of today; Iranian law has more detailed and sophisticated formulations in the definitions of exemptions from civil liability compared to Iraqi law.