Although freedom of speech may seem like a simple concept, it may be considered one of the most challenging legal and political terms for nations.

Freedom, in the broadest sense of the word, is a state in which something is not limited or dependent on something else (Political Encyclopedia, Dariush Ashouri). However, beyond the realm of words and definitions, freedom is a relative concept that is unique and inherent only to humans; in other words, only humans can be considered in relation to the subject and object of freedom.

Freedom is always a necessary topic in identifying its cause and direction. Before Western societies defined freedom in terms of political and social freedoms, in philosophical discussions – whether in Islam or Christianity – the debate of determinism and free will as the confrontation between the will of God and the will of humans and their relationship with the issue of good and evil has been raised. According to this theory, in the face of a phrase like freedom, human rights, etc., it is not possible to reach a logical definition, because the essence of definition requires the obligation of restrictions and limitations that can be a barrier for individuals and prevent oppression, and this quality is like entering a clause and condition for a phrase that inherently should not be limited and dependent on anything. However, in the world of law and politics, it is necessary to identify and analyze each phrase and institution in order to explain the rules and requirements arising from the delegation of powers to humans, and ultimately provide a definition for it. Although most of these definitions are

The Constitution, which is defined as the highest law in the Islamic Republic system of government, in explaining freedom of expression according to Article 24 states: “Publications and the press are free to express unless they violate the principles of Islam or public rights. The details are determined by law.” This same principle mentioned in the Constitution at the beginning of this discussion reminds us that freedom of expression is different from freedom of belief. Although freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms recognized in international declarations of human rights and international covenants, this principle seems to contradict Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression without fear or intimidation.” This apparent contradiction is a preamble to identifying freedom of expression and then resolving this contradiction.

According to Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the fundamental question arises as to whether freedom of expression equates to freedom of opinion. In a political regime where laws and rules are based on Sharia, is it necessary to seek the roots of every right and obligation in religious foundations? The general message of the Quran supports the fundamental idea that Islam always invites humans to reason and contemplation, considers intellectualism as a sign of human dignity and nobility, and regards blind imitation without reasoning as ugly and unworthy of human status. Therefore, based on this reasoning, God has commanded the prophets to invite people towards monotheism with clear proofs and evidence. The invitation to debate and dialogue with the best and most effective methods (verse 46 of Surah Al-Ankabut) is another sign of Islam’s invitation to reason. Acceptance of freedom of thought implies that each human being, with their differences, can think and choose the best words

According to the verses of the Quran, which are considered the strongest evidence and proof of the existence of a matter in Islamic law, it can be concluded that in the Islamic legal system, the principle of freedom of expression and belief is also accepted. This is evident in Article 24 of the Constitution, which, like other international declarations, discusses the limitations and restrictions that need to be examined in the context of freedom of expression and belief.

The first restriction is the discussion of people’s rights, which is defined in the form of law and rule with individuals who attack individual rights by expressing themselves, violating the personal and social privileges of the intended person, and considers such a person deserving of punishment (discussion of defamation, insult, etc.).

The second limitation is the prohibition of expressing opinions in a place where it contradicts moral ethics and public order of society. In the formation of rules, the observance of moral ethics and the preservation of public order are always a priority and a necessary condition for the establishment of laws. In identifying moral ethics, it is worth considering that despite the relative nature of habits and customs in societies, the moral and ethical beliefs and convictions of each society are considered as the basis for defining moral ethics. The consideration of moral ethics and public order is of such importance that it is mentioned in the definition of the philosophy of law that, in terms of essence, the creation of justice and, in terms of form, moral ethics are the reason for the existence of law, and some even believe that the consideration of moral ethics is a necessary prerequisite for the establishment of justice.

It is obvious with such belief that individuals in society are obligated to follow principles and rules that have been set by the government through legislation and have been made known to the public in an appropriate manner. Now, if someone violates public rights under the pretext of freedom of speech, it is obvious that they should be held accountable for their actions.

A notable point in the confrontation of individuals with public rights is that, in parallel with the expression of such an individual, the rights of other members of society are violated. Allowing someone to insult the religious beliefs of others under the pretext of freedom of expression is a clear violation, which forces the government to establish rules in order to address this challenge. If an individual’s personal expression leads to the violation of the public rights of the people, or if they attack the principle of sovereignty with their words, they will be subject to legal action.

Supporting freedom of speech, which is a natural right of citizens, is considered worthless without the guarantee of logical and enforceable measures. Therefore, based on this general principle, various methods have been provided in the country’s constitution to ensure freedom of speech; principles such as fair trial, public trials, presence of a fair jury, etc. are among the tools that guarantee individual freedoms, including freedom of speech. The Islamic Penal Code, in order to protect the individual rights of individuals, has defined crimes such as disclosing professional secrets, slander and libel, spreading lies, insults and abuse, perjury and false testimony, and threats as criminal measures against the misuse of the principle of freedom of speech, under the title of crimes against individuals. Furthermore, in order to protect public rights, sovereignty and internal or external security of the country, crimes such as espionage and betrayal of the country through the disclosure of government and military secrets are defined. In addition, in order to protect the sanctity of religious

It can be observed from the aforementioned descriptions that freedom of speech, like other principles and rules, has exceptions. These exceptions mainly limit the scope of this principle when its exercise causes a disruption to public order or individual-social morality, and may cause harm to it. In order to ensure these limitations, criminal regulations have been established.

A notable point that has been less addressed in the field of public law is when individuals impose unjustifiable restrictions on freedom of expression, including the recent proposal by the parliament to allow individuals to express their opinions on current social issues.

“Devoid of the necessary requirements for the establishment of a law, which have not been observed in such a proposal, it is necessary for experts in various fields to be involved in identifying the necessary coordinates in the establishment of the law, and based on their expertise, to express their opinions, criticisms, and suggestions to be considered in the text of the legal article.”

In addition to these necessities, it is essential and necessary to consider the good morals of society and the general order governing relationships between individuals and with the government in the preamble of creating regulations. This requirement is evident in the country’s constitution and the prevailing customs of society. Therefore, it is necessary not only to consider the appropriate procedures in legislation for the creation of a legal provision, but also for the addition, removal, or even a single word from the content of the law.

With this description, the examination and analysis of the performance of the legislative power in recent times supports the claim that without paying enough attention to such requirements, members of parliament, without considering certain principles of the constitution and established principles of jurisprudence and legal rights, solely engage in writing laws in opposition and confrontation with certain events and incidents in society, without thinking about the consequences and effects of such laws. A clear and obvious example of such a claim is the recent action of the parliament in proposing an amendment to Article 521 of the Islamic Penal Code with the following content:

Any person who holds a position in the society, whether it be in the field of work, social, political, familial, scientific, cultural, or military, and in their speeches, interviews, articles, messages, and notes in the real or virtual space, expresses false information about matters that require official statements and have not yet been officially declared, which may have widespread repercussions and cause severe disruption to the public order of the country, insecurity, or major harm to the physical integrity of individuals or public and private property, or contribute to the spread of corruption or immorality on a large scale, if it does not fall under the category of corruption on earth as defined in Article 286 of the new Islamic Penal Code, in addition to being sentenced to a third degree punishment of 10 to 15 years imprisonment, will also be sentenced to a monetary penalty equivalent to twice the damages caused to the physical integrity of individuals or public and private property, and will be responsible for compensating the damages caused

Note: The following is a rough translation and may not be exact.

“Note – The mentioned individuals, in addition to the mentioned punishments, are sentenced to a deprivation of social rights and a prohibition from the profession or occupation that has led to their notoriety, for a period of five to ten years, according to this article.”

Devoid of the fact that creating such a rule goes against the principle of freedom of speech and contradicts certain principles of the constitution, the majority of the words and phrases mentioned in the text lack the necessary qualities in terms of legal drafting; including the explicitness and clarity of expressions and words. In interpreting a legal provision, before the importance of the “concept” of the law, which is derived from imposing a rule, the “verbal” aspect is important. In other words, it is necessary for the legislator to pay the utmost attention to the use of words and phrases, and even if possible, not to refrain from using phrases that have various meanings and a wide range of semantic scope. Therefore, before imposing such an obligation under the title of a single supplementary provision to Article 512, which goes against the principles of the constitution and the rules of criminal law, the verbal aspect and the phrases used in it have multiple flaws. It is hoped that before such a law is passed

What is the meaning of “social status”? What is an example of “spreading messages in virtual and physical space”? What does the phrase “about a matter” mean? What is the example and criteria for identifying “widespread feedback”? What do you mean by “serious disruption of public order”? How can the reason for the “fame of individuals” be identified? Which principle of legislation and rules of criminal law is the use of analogy and metaphor in criminalizing the behavior of individuals consistent with? Can behavior be criminalized through metaphor? How do you imagine the necessary physical behavior for committing the crime of war through sending a message or writing a note?

…and hundreds, if not thousands, of questions and issues arise from such a plan, which indicates a lack of consideration for necessary requirements in drafting a law.