The Authority of the Administration to Restrict Freedom of Expression in Exceptional Circumstances, in Accordance With Iranian Legal Systems

Human rights are among the rights of every human being. One of these inalienable rights, which is affirmed in the international human rights system, is the right to freedom of expression. This right is the most prevalent form of freedom, which is particularly related to all forms of freedom. Throughout history, freedom of expression has been one of human aspirations, and humanity has incurred heavy costs in realizing this right. Freedom of expression by all possible means such as cinema, radio, television, etc. is an important human right with basic and conceptual dimensions intertwined with democracy. This right is key to the protection of all human rights and the protection of human dignity and a fundamental concept of rights protection. The right to freedom of expression, like many human rights in relation to the rights of others, is restricted and limited in its scope. The unfettered exercise of rights, although essential, will in itself lead to a violation of human rights. Just as absolute freedom of expression can harm and endanger the rights of other members of society in relation to the dignity, honour, security and national interests of society, manifestations of this freedom may also harm human feelings and emotions, and often lead to the violation of other human rights. Therefore, the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the above-mentioned aspects, goes beyond the scope of application and ends with restriction and restriction. In other words, freedom of expression is a right that must be restricted in some cases, and this is quite justified from a human rights point of view that, due to various considerations, it is necessary to impose restrictions on it, and the justified limitations of this right make it a fragile and slippery right. By relying on these cases, the authorities who can justify the restriction on public opinion and can, under the guise of seemingly right-wing and, in fact, illegal and illegal actions, can exploit these titles and silence any dissenting voice. The same kind of abuse of the majority is possible against the minority. In other words, the authority or the majority in society can hide its inhumane actions behind the mask of necessary and justified restrictions by relying on seemingly convincing justifications, and this justifies the need to define the criteria and the basis for any restriction. While accepting human rights restrictions, including freedom of expression, in order to prevent undue restriction and abuse, the field needs to establish criteria for restriction. They have introduced the harmless rational and ethical principle as an appropriate criterion for evaluating the justified restriction of the unjustified. In order to get rid of the harms of invoking this principle, the harm must also be interpreted in a limited way, so that freedom of expression, principle and restriction are considered completely exceptional. The study was divided into three chapters, and ended with a conclusion that included the most important Findings and recommendations.