حالات انتفاء المسؤولية التقصيرية عن وسائل الإعلام الإلكتروني عند المساس بالحق في السمعة

الملخص EN

Electronic media plays an essential part in society, as it has now become the primary source of information, and it performs an effective and important function in transmitting facts to the majority of society.

in addition, it reveals and highlights all of society's flaws, compels responsible authorities to address these flaws, and contributes to the formation and direction of public opinion, among other things.

however, the media may constitute, purposefully or accidentally, tools that defame people and may cause them to be insulted in ways that traditional media are unaware of, whether in terms of the breadth and scope of sharing, its rapidity, or its continuity and ease of transfer by others.

violation of the right to reputation and prejudice against it through electronic media result in tort legal liability for the damaging conduct that emerges from it.

the nature of the media's work has a significant impact on the reputation and honor of others; thus, tort liability arises in circumstances where the electronic media violates its legal duty not to harm others.

as a result, the electronic media must exercise care and caution when dealing with others, and their error is the source of the damage.

there are numerous examples that cannot be tallied in which the electronic media's obligation is tortious.

nonetheless, there are some cases where the legislator believed that the public's interest in knowing the facts about important matters should take priority over the interest of the person whose reputation may be harmed accidentally, resulting in the absence of tortious responsibility for those who must be held accountable.

these are some examples of permissible criticism : appealing the actions of public officials and publishing what happens in public sessions.

this is what this research will look into.

the study is divided into three sections.

the first section addresses the admissible criticism case by describing it in the first topic and clarifying its conditions, as if the criticism's occurrence were fixed and real.

the second topic addresses the fact that the occurrence that is the subject of criticism is of societal importance, that the criticism is appropriate for the criticized incident, and that the critic is well-meaning.

the second section addresses the right to challenge the actions of public officials by explaining what is meant by the right to criticize the behavior of individuals in public capacity in the first topic and the circumstances for defending the truth against the public official in the second topic.

the person must be a public representative or be charged with a public service ; the occurrence attributed to him must be relevant to the job of his position ; the appellant must be honest ; and the facts attributed to the public employee must be proven correct.

the third section addresses the right to post what happens in public sessions by dividing such a right into two topics: the first is the right to the parliamentary platform (Shura ouncil and people).

the second topic concerns the right to publish what happens in court sessions, as anything that may happen in these sessions could harm a person's reputation, and as a result, the use of this right by the electronic media was limited.