Freedom of Expression includes the Freedom to express, access and dissemination of information, whereas copyright, by protecting the original works of authorship, restricts use, access and dissemination of the protected works. When an Expression is protected by copyright, Freedom of Expression or press can be restricted. Some are of the opinion that these two rights are, in fact, not in conflict with each other but rather derived from the same social values seeking to protect each right. Common goals such as flow of cultural ideas or promoting creativity in the society causes interaction and synergy between the two. Idea-Expression dichotomy by determining the scope of the copyright and distinguishing what belongs to the public domain, which is not a protected, will ensure a constructive interaction between the two and protects the public interest and dose not restrict Freedom of Expression. This article will discuss how to strike a balance between the public interest in Freedom of Expression and the private interests of the copyright owners without undermining the other. Idea-Expression dichotomy as a counterbalance between these two rights is the cornerstone of this article.

The body Freedom flutter phenomenon is one of the aeroelastic instabilities that occurs due to the coupling of the aeroelastic bending mode of the wing with the short-period mode in the flight dynamics of the aircraft. By using the aeroservoelastic model and applying closed loop control, this phenomenon can be suppressed in the operating conditions of the aircraft and the velocity of this event can be increased. The simplest model aircraft capable of displaying this instability includes the flexible wing and the planar flight dynamics model. For this purpose, the wing structure is modeled using the Euler-Bernoulli beam and, the theory of minimum variable state is used to model unstable aerodynamics to make the conditions suitable for modeling the system in state space. In the control section, the elevator is used as the control surface and LQR theory with Kalman filter is used to body Freedom flutter suppression. Finally, the effect of adding a closed loop control to increase the body Freedom flutter velocity and the limitations of this work are studied.

At first glance it may seem there is no mutual supportive relationship between copyright or rights of the authors of literary and artistic works, on one hand, and Freedom of Expression on the other. On deeper analysis, however, there are areas of such mutual support. This article attempts to examine these areas. The author is of the opinion that copyright and Freedom of Expression help and support each other in various ways. Copyright contributes to increase the production of literary and artistic works through granting exclusive rights to the authors and in so doing, creates a marketplace of ideas and information to be available to those who intend to exercise Freedom of Expression and thus allows them to have access to a variety of ideas and information in order to form their own points of views and express them. On the other hand, copyright empowers the community of authors and helps free them from being dependent on the state. Freedom of Expression, in its turn, creates suitable environment for flourishing creative activities and removes the shadow of censorship and undue prosecution. In examining the issue, the article first deals with some key points in copyright and Freedom of Expression and then explores the ways of mutual support.

Incitement to racial discrimination is a conflict point between Freedom of Expression and principle of non-discrimination which both are the main core of international human rights law. Principle of non-discrimination is fundamental in human rights law and any form of discrimination including racial discrimination effects enjoyment and fulfilment of all human rights. Historical experiences including world war 2 shows that incitement to racial discrimination creates a proper atmosphere to commit crime against racial groups. Freedom of Expression is also a fundamental right and plays a key role in finding the truth, public partnership and enhancing tolerance. Although it is not an absolute right and it can be a subject of some limitation in certain circumstances. Incitement to racial discrimination is a legitimate limitation of Freedom of Expression which is prohibited in International Convention on Elimination of All Form of Racial Discrimination (1965). This convention asks state parties to criminalize incitement to racial discrimination in their domestic law. This article studies conditions of realization of incitement to racial discrimination and the way which these Expressions must be limited. The main question is that how and up to what point prohibition of incitement to racial discrimination can limit Freedom of Expression. Due to importance of Freedom of information and preventing unproportioned limitation of Freedom of Expression, there should be accurate criteria for limiting Expressions. Although CRC committee tried to introduce criteria for incitement to racial discrimination, they are not accurate. Expansion of race phenomenon made it difficult to distinguish these Expressions.

Freedom of Expression, i.e., the permission to express thoughts, ideas, emotions and sensibility in various ways, is a fundamental human right; a right based on the inherent dignity of human beings. The right to Freedom of Expression, like other individual rights and Freedoms, is balanced with the social responsibility. This balance of rights and responsibilities automatically restricts the rights of individuals, including their right to Freedom of speech. The requirements of collective life, the preservation of human dignity and the principle of non-harm to others are the foundations of individuals' social responsibility and the restriction of their Freedoms. These principles have led to international and regional human rights instruments, Islamic norms and national laws restricting Freedom of Expression in favor of other values such as the rights and Freedoms of others, the just requirements of morality, social order and the public interest. This library research examines the restrictions on Freedom of speech by analyzing document contents.

Freedom of Expression is one of the most important human rights rules that have always been debated. In the present paper, an attempt has been made to address the jurisprudence approach in supporting Freedom of Expression and its criminal guarantee in Iranian criminal law. The main question that has been raised and examined in this regard is what is the position of protection of Freedom of Expression in jurisprudence and what mechanisms and executive guarantees has Iranian criminal law devised in support of Freedom of Expression. The present paper is a descriptive-analytical, applying the library method. The findings show that in jurisprudence, according to rules such as good debate, the need for consultation, acceptance of criticism and criticism in the Prophet's life, Freedom of Expression is accepted. But this Freedom is not absolute and in cases such as defamation of God, the Prophet and the Imams, and apostasy has some limitations. Also, in Iranian criminal law, the issue of explicit protection of the right to Freedom of Expression has been neglected, and only in special cases has a mere reference to its examples been sufficient when criminalizing exceptions to Freedom of Expression.

Publicity Right means that exploitation of another personality with his permission is possible. There is no doubt about this right But there is disagreement over the realm of it. Can an exception be made for this right Or, any use of another personality is subject to the permission of the person? In American law, full implementation of this right is a violation of Freedom of Expression. For this reason, they have tried to modify this right and, in particular, define its boundaries with Freedom of Expression. The most important difficulty in this direction is determining the criteria for distinguishing the realm of the right. Various criteria are presented for this purpose. The most important criterion is the theory of fair use. Accordingly, if a person changes the identity of a celebrity And transform it into another form or, if the intention of the individual is to disseminate information about a famous person, his action will be justified. In fact, in these two cases, the right of publicity will be sacrificed at the expense of more important value: Freedom of speech. In this article, we are trying to provide suggestions for the Iranian legal system by studying the US legal system.

In this essay we try to show the place of Freedom (free will) in Kant’s thought according to Heidegger’s interpretation; according to this interpretation, Freedom is not a metaphysical and noumenal Freedom for human as Subject but an existential one that makes him possible as a Dasein (being- in- world). Such a fundamental Freedom is not provable and cannot be treated by any theoretical speculation, rather we encounter it in our actions and in the process of making free decisions, finding philosopher’s theoretical attempts to prove it in vain. The actuality of Freedom must be searched in ourselves and in our own state of being, not in a lifeless and systematic arguments of philosopher’s; And it is Kant that discovers this point implicitly in his second Critic (The Critique of Practical reason) causing a great turn for Heidegger's thought.

In the past two decades, Europe has had numerous conflicts resulting from the clash between Freedom of Expression and religious insults. The European legal system considers Freedom of Expression as one of the fundamentals of a democratic society and a basic condition for individual progress and self-actualization. The central approach of the European Court of Human Rights is that Freedom of Expression includes not only non-insulting statements but also offensive, shocking, or provocative statements. However, this court seeks to resolve the conflict between Freedom of Expression and blasphemy and create a balance among different interests. On the one hand, under “protecting others’ rights,” the court spoke of banning severely insulting statements that cause significant distress to religious followers. On the other hand, from a societal perspective, the court considered the risk of a public outcry from religious societies due to religious insults. Recently, however, the court gave significant weight to the political, scientific, and artistic aspects of Expression when balancing Freedom of Expression against religious sensitivities, thereby expanding Freedom of Expression’s scope. Nonetheless, the threat to public order remains a key factor in the court's decisions to restrict statements containing religious insults. This study used a qualitative method based on content analysis with a descriptive-analytical approach and employing library and internet sources.