Traditionally, Defamation against individuals has been criminalized in order to protect the value of reputation and dignity. Although criminal protection shows the great importance of the values, sometimes they conflict with the right to freedom of expression and information; The protection of both mentioned rights requires that a legal balancing between them so that the protection of one right does not impose illegitimate legal restrictions on the other right. For this reason, some countries have adopted the decriminalization approach and have replaced punishment with civil responsibility. It seems that the middle approach is more desirable, based on which, without removing criminal protection and intervention in general, the minimum legal restrictions are imposed on the right to freedom of expression, which carries many and more public interests; So that especially the newspapers and media, for fulfilling their professional mission and duties, do not feel the pressure of criminal prosecution and conviction. The civil approach reduces this concern to a great extent.

Dear Editor, While front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) combatting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have commanded much respect and praise, 1 they have been persecuted in Japan – a collective society where individual reputation and work ethic are traditionally viewed as important as one’ s life. HCWs, who were exposed to higher risk of infection due to lack of sufficient personal protective equipment and mentally exhausted in daily work, have another epidemic to fight: Defamation. They have been targeted for discrimination and abuse in off-duty hours and stigmatized as “ germs” in public spaces with many suffering social sanctions in forms of social exclusion and even bullying. ..

Slandering God is attributing something unjustly or without knowledge to God Almighty or describing Him to things that do not exist in Him. The purpose of this research is to discover the semantic system of Defamation of God in the Holy Quran with the ontology method, which is a method of information science and epistemology to manage information in a scientific field. The question is, how can ontology help us in discovering the semantic geometry of slandering God in the Qur'an? It is obvious that the existence of a precise, objective and transparent map in every scientific field and research topic can be a road map for researchers and make the production of thought in that field smoother. In order to achieve this purpose and with the analytical descriptive method, after defining the concept of ontology and Defamation, it has been tried to extract concepts that are related to "Defamation of God" in the Qur'an and commentaries, and with the ontological method, the type of communication They should be discovered and classified. The finding of the research is that several concepts are semantically related to "Defamation of God",These concepts include: guidance, growth, misguidance, harm, mercy, forgiveness, charity, distortion of religion, polytheism, disbelief, idolatry, solitude, divine curse, divine wrath, cruelty, divine punishment, happiness, misery, salvation and security

The article 697 of the book Taʿzirāt (discretionary punishments) of the Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran Adopted on 1996 is the documented general form of Defamation crime. The psychological condition of this intentional crime (knowledge and intention) has always been disputed from different angles by judges and authors. The degree of compatibility of the issue of “obtaining the knowledge of the perpetrator about the falsity of in the attribution given to another or published it” with the Quranic and narrative teachings, “necessity or lack of necessity of obtaining the intention of damage” and “the effect of non-reactionary behavior on the psychological conditions of the perpetrator of the Defamation” are three issues that this research has been done by using library resources and comprehensive systems of laws and regulations and judicial decisions in a descriptive and analytical method and have been submitted some suggestions in order to amend the mentioned law. Accordingly, the research concluded that “the necessity of obtaining the knowledge of the perpetrator about the falsity of in the attribution given to another” with the Quranic teachings and narrations that command people to obey the knowledge and extreme avoidance of conjecture and the obedience of dignity and worth of the human person of God’s servants is in conflict and does not need to consider the obtaining the intention of damage to the perpetrator in order to prove the Defamation and whether or not the behavior of the perpetrator is reactionary or not, even if the behavior of the perpetrator is not defending oneself before a judicial authority has no effect on the intent to commit Defamation.

Undoubtedly, one of the crimes we face in criminal courts today is the crime of Defamation. However, in most of the cases filed after the preliminary investigation and the issuance of a summons to the trial by the prosecutor's office, the case was filed after the trial in the second criminal court, or in the same initial stage, with the argument that "the defendant will apologize. " They have filed a complaint. ”, They are facing a verdict of innocence or after the sentencing of the court of first instance and the defendant's objection to it, in the appeal stage with the same argument, it leads to the issuance of a verdict of innocence and ends. Rohet The present study, while examining this matter, is in fact a critique of the verdict issued by Branch 27 of the Tehran Court of Appeals regarding the lawsuit No. 9309970222700323-13/03/1393, which, despite the sentencing of the accused by Branch 1004 of the General Criminal Court of Tehran, The offenders have issued the acquittal with the same reasoning as above. In view of the above and the explicitness of Article 697 of the Islamic Penal Code (Penalties) adopted in 1996, considering that the mentioned Article, including the conditions for the realization of Defamation, is considered to be the crime of attribution and also the inability of the court to prove its claim. However, the question that comes to mind here is whether the explicitness of this article also applies in cases where individuals also file a complaint for the purpose of grievances?

One of the moral rights related to the personality of individuals is the right to fame. Legal systems have supported this right in different ways. One of these methods is applying the rules governing tortious liability and imposing compensation on the violators of this right. Based on this, in the American and English legal systems, they have used the format and title of "Defamation". The question is what are the concept, basis, conditions and pillars of Defamation? What types of defenses are recognized in these two legal systems? And is it possible to file tortious liability lawsuits due to Defamation in Iranian law? The basis of this responsibility in English law is strict liability, and in American and Iranian law, it is based on fault. Also, its elements are: existence of defamatory statements, publication of statements, attribution to the victim and loss. In addition, the consent of the petitioner, the public interest, etc. are among the Defamation defenses and factors that create a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation in American and British law, which seems that only the public interest can be accepted as a defense in Iranian law. The mission of this article is to achieve the rules governing tortious liability caused by Defamation in Iranian law with an analytical-descriptive approach and with a comparative look at the American and English legal systems.

A hadith attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) states that he warned during his reign: “Whoever considers me superior to Abu Bakr and Umar, I will punish slander on him.” Another tahrir (version) of this warning threatens to punish those who condemn the first two caliphs and not those who exalt Ali (as). This paper attempts to validate the attribution of the hadith to Ali (AS) outside the theological framework, with a historical approach, explaining its origin discourse and within the current temporal and spatial context.The results showed that the tahrir concerning the “Tafdhil” (superiority) of this hadith was most likely developed in the 90s of the first century AH in Kufa. Then another tahrir concerning the condemnation of the first two caliphs, at most evolved during the first half of the second century. Religious debates on the Caliphs legitimacy and ranking were also the historical context for the emergence and evolution of this hadith.

Today, with the advancement of communication, Defamation claims have crossed the national borders, it is possible for several foreign elements to be involved in a claim. In this situation, several courts may apply jurisdiction based on their relationship with those elements. This issue is problematic where there is a little connection between those elements and the jurisdiction. Therefore, legal systems must provide jurisdictional rules that prevent such a challenge. In this research, it will be investigated what jurisdictional criteria are used by the legal systems of Iran, England and the European Union in these claims. Can these rules meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and at the same time have the necessary flexibility in view of the evolution of technology? In the English legal system, the legislators have adopted special rules for Defamation which provides that, the courts can hear the lawsuit if England is the most appropriate place to file that claim. therefore, the English courts should examine the connection of the lawsuit with other jurisdictions. In the European Union, in addition to the general rule of the defendant's place of residence, the place of damage where the Defamation was published also has jurisdiction. In EU law, the center of the victim’s interests will be competent in internet Defamation. However, there are no specific rules for Defamation in Iranian law, and the general jurisdiction rules will be applicable in the case of Defamation. This Iranian approach is ineffective for Defamation and will cause difficulties for litigants.

With the development of communication and media tools, Defamation cases have transcended national borders, so the international elements involved in such cases can be very numerous. Therefore, the legal systems should provide choice of law rules for the courts that have an appropriate effect. This research will investigate that what kind of rules are used in the legal systems of England, the European Union and Iran to determine applicable law. Are these rules compliant with the conditions of Defamation claims? In the studied legal systems, no special rule has been designed for Defamation. In the European Union, due to the exception of Defamation from the general rules of conflict of laws, national rules are applied. In Iranian law, only the general rule of lex fori is applicable, but in English law, according to common law, Defamation must be held liable by both the lex fori and the lex loci delicti. This research will demonstrate that the rules provided in these legal systems are ineffective and have to conform to Defamation lawsuits.