Report CinemaEast wrote:
The confrontation between the Sound Media Regulatory Authority and the “Satra” with the platforms and platforms of the Home Theater Network is a rooted topic that has been discussed by legal lawyers, filmmakers and artists active in the field. In the thirteenth government, the issue of predecessor and post -post -producing serials produced by the Home Theater Network platforms has been entrusted to the collection in accordance with the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. While Satra itself is one of the departments of the Voice of Iran Organization, it can be raised in many cases, including the conflict of interest. Recently, with the judicial follow -up of Satra, the continuation of the Tasian (Tina Pakravan) series has been banned after the release of three parts and due to the failure to obtain production and broadcasting permits, and this issue has once again addressed the subject matter of this regulator’s authority and duties in accordance with the constitution. On the same pretext, and to clarify the various aspects of this issue, we had a conversation with Vahid Agha, a lawyer and expert in the field of culture, art and media.
The root and problem of broadcasting “Tasian” goes back to the first episode. On February 14th, Mohammad Javad Shakouri Moghaddam, CEO of Filimo’s platform, announced a letter from Satra in which Tina Pakravan’s protection was unknown. Depending on the scope of Satra’s duties, to what extent is this in accordance with the law and what is the state of protection? Because there is no further explanation in this letter, and it is strange that, unlike the next letter that led to the seizure of the series, there is no mention of a problem with the production and broadcasting license.
The word protection has no place in legal terminology and is not mentioned in the laws and regulations. Protecting is the confirmation of security or selective approval by Satra as a subsidiary of the Voice of America Organization. In the Iranian legal system, if a person intends to be hired in an institution or organization, it needs to be approved, and this is done in the system of legal framework that has its own law and regulations that have remained for many years. This is for the hiring of people who, as government employees in the government, are subordinate to the service as employee, or what is derived from the Ministry of Intelligence and Intelligence Protection in particular at the higher levels. It should be noted that, apart from the selection system for government employees, it should be examined for prohibition on how to arrange for Iranian legal issues. Protecting is a word -specific word for Satra and contains the implicit meaning that for people who intend to work, there must be selective and security approval.
But this is not accepted in the Iranian legal system and cannot be considered for people who intend to work in any environment, especially the field of culture and art and the home theater network. In the case of the issue of banning, it should be said that administrative and judicial prohibitions are raised. The first is completely illegal in the Iranian legal system, and although unfortunately it has been unfortunately for many years, it has no conformity with the constitution and is rejected. Therefore, if the purpose of preservation is to ban the administrative prohibition by the Voice of America Organization, to determine who is the right to operate, this issue is not accepted in Iranian law. But if the prohibition is prohibited, that is, the process in which the judicial system and the judiciary system exist, there is a need for a definitive court order, and this is not possible with non -judgment, and the definitive verdict has certain conditions, during which the legislator can apply for a harsh law.
What is the prohibition of judicial prohibition and what hierarchies do it apply to the arts and culture?
The prohibition of judicial work has a specific language. One is the principle of legalization of the crime, which is stated in Article 2 of the Constitution of Article 2 of the former Penal Code in Year 2 and numerous articles of current laws such as Islamic Penal Code in Article 2 and other Articles, and the principle of legalization and the principle of legalization of the implementation of the punishment. It is also defined in other provisions of the Penal Code. According to these principles, any person who is to be punished must be known as punishment or abandonment in the law and its enforcement shall be in accordance with the law. But if the judge’s prohibition is implemented in the judicial system, this issue must be raised in the law, and in the current laws, this issue is not specified as a specific punishment, and merely in the law on the punishment of persons who act in audiovisual affairs, the system is deprived of social rights. But banning as a supplementary punishment is foreseen in the current law, and it is discussed about the prohibition of employment, the profession or a specific job. In the name of subordinate punishment, there is also a ban on Iranian law, which is referred to as deprivation of social rights, and in some offenses and penalties, the legislator in Articles 1 and 2 of the current Penal Code has raised cases in which individuals are deprived of some social rights.
Interestingly, there are no extensive issues here. There are, of course, other things. For example, prohibition is when an individual punishment is suspended or prohibited when a prisoner is being released on conditioned or if the sentence is delayed. In some cases, this punishment is replaced by imprisonment. But all of these are related to when an artist has committed a crime that has been proven and convicted of legal punishment, and with these descriptions, he is sentenced to a definitive order in the judicial system. Under these circumstances, he can be banned under legal rules and is prohibited by legal and legal prohibition. But the question is whether the director of the Tasian series has been sentenced to a crime and does it have a definitive judicial punishment? That seems to be a good answer. Therefore, what has been made as a protection in the director of the Tasian series has no legal basis and does not support Iranian law.
According to the Judiciary News Agency, the reason for the release of the Tasian series was found to be a lack of production and broadcasting, and the reference said the problems should be reformed. Given that the news of the production and filming process of this play has long been raised, as well as the director of the series, Tina Pakravan, has announced that the sessions have been held with Satra for six months and the audits have been corrected at that point, how much the issue could be licensed for production and broadcasting.
It should be borne in mind that the subject in question is the “Satra” collection that operates under the auspices of the Voice of America. Satra is one of the departments of the Voice of America and is an institution that is a subsidiary of the Voice of America and has no independent legal existence. In Iranian law, “law” is approved by parliament and the Islamic Consultative Assembly’s approval to be approved by the Guardian Council or, in cases of dispute, the final approval of the former Expediency Council. There is no law, however, that it has been recognized in the Iranian fundamental rights system; Unless the law of punishment for persons who work in audiovisual affairs unauthorized, which is adopted by year 2.
Article 2 of this Act states that any business activity in the field of production, distribution, reproduction and supply of works, tapes and audio and video tablets requires a license from the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, and offenders are sentenced to cash penalties. This material refers to the production, distribution, reproduction and supply of works, tapes and compact audio and video bills, at which time the works and format of the works were presented. But the law states in Article 5 that the publication of pornographic and vulgar works through electronic communications and computer sites, or other similar techniques and techniques, shall be considered proliferation and publishing and are sentenced to the punishment provided for in this Act. Also in Article 2, if you want to produce and distribute audio and video works, there is no legal documentary on obtaining a license from Satra and Voice -over -the -Sima on production and distribution.
Despite the legal issues you mentioned, there is apparently not a problem for the Tasian series. What is the case with the law on the problem for this collection, Satra or the judiciary?
In this regard, there is a resolution in the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which is called the requirement of the requirements of the regulation of audio and pervasive image. Unfortunately, the group of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in the government of Mr. Raisi and the Minister of the Minister has reached an agreement with the participation of members of the Ministry of Culture. This article has been approved by the aim of dividing labor and separating legal responsibilities and supporting the promotion of Iranian-Islamic content production in the field of culture and art in cyberspace, and to address the concerns of activists in this field. It should be seen in the concern of activists in this field, and whether the Iranian legal system was essentially allowed to bypass two legal entities called Satra and the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, bypassing the constitution and the ordinary law and dividing duties in the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. In Iranian law, this is not the case.
Suppose, for example, the State Department will find a difference with the Ministry of Justice and both decide to raise the issue of separation of tasks. Under these circumstances, the law and the legal standards are ignored. Paragraph 1 of the resolution states that the responsibility for regulating, licensing and monitoring news agencies and the media, books, advertising, computer games and things that may not have been attractive to Voice of America have been assigned to the Ministry of Culture in the field of audio and video. Most importantly, the Guardian Council’s interpretation of Article 2 and Article 2 of the Constitution has been cited and responsible for regulatory, licensing, monitoring media active and pervasive image, including media -oriented and publisher media, or “VODs”, as well as the Home Theater and Home Theater Network.
The fourth paragraph states that the production and broadcast of live programs and licensing and monitoring live broadcasting in cyberspace is a monopoly of the Voice of America Organization, and the terms, regulations and guidelines of this Article are considered by a delegation of two representatives and two representatives of the Ministry of Culture. Slow. The result is that the Home Theater Network and the issuance of production, supervision and all affairs of the Ministry of Culture have been dismissed, and interestingly, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance has also contributed to another entity. In the current circumstances, Satra cites the decree that production and distribution must be obtained from its duct.
In these circumstances, are they required to obtain a license from Satra only by referring to the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, home theater platforms and producers?
If the judiciary wants to force the Cultural Revolution, the Filimo platform and the producer of Tasian to obtain a license to produce “Satra”, I think this is not a legal basis and is contrary to the constitution and contrary to the law. With the approval of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, we cannot criminalize and require individual prosecution and court; Because the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution is at best a regulation, and in the normative system and hierarchy of Iran’s constitution, the constitution was initially a reference constitution, then ordinary laws and finally the regulations have been taken into consideration. The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution’s Supreme Council approved at best and the best situation, which is under the constitution, and the issuance of production and broadcasting for Satra lacks this situation, so that “Filimo” or producer of “Tasian” has not received production and broadcasting permits.
In general, can Satra as a supervisory entity, by law, to seize a dramatic product? There is no legal vacuum in this regard?
Concerning Satra’s competence on the seizure of a dramatic work, in accordance with the explanations, the issuance of production and broadcasting is not legal. Satra, as a subsidiary of the Voice of Iran Organization, like all citizens of the country, including natural and legal persons, can protest the broadcast of a dramatic work on the field of audio and pervasive image in cyberspace and file a complaint in the judicial authority. If he thinks the general crime has occurred, he or she can report to the prosecutor, and if the prosecutor is correct, he or she will file a complaint and order the investigation. Otherwise, if Satra thinks a series needs to be banned, it should be consider how much it benefits itself and, on their own benefit, it can go to the judicial system and be a plaintiff, like all citizens. This can only happen when it comes to a vulgar or pornographic effect and can then file a complaint or report to the claimant. Otherwise, without a definitive judicial order, he has no right to seize any dramatic effect.