An Exploration of Effective Legal and Non-Legal Methods for Resolving Media Disputes Inside and Outside Courts of Justice (Comparative Study: Iran and the United States)

Media disputes, especially in the contemporary world where we are faced with the rapid dissemination of information, are considered one of the major challenges for legal and judicial systems around the world. As an influential tool in society, the media is often subject to various complaints and lawsuits, which may have legal, economic, and social aspects. Meanwhile, there are various legal and non-legal methods for resolving these disputes, each with its own characteristics and complexities. The main question of this research is: "What are the common legal and non-legal methods for resolving media disputes?" In this regard, the question is specifically raised: "How can private justice guarantee the quality, security, and enforcement guarantees necessary for resolving media disputes?"  This research aimed to examine and analyze these methods, especially through a comparative study of the legal systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. In this research, in addition to analyzing legal methods, such as the settlement system, non-legal methods such as arbitration and voluntary dispute resolution were also examined. This research emphasizes that, in addition to judicial processes, non-legal methods can significantly help reduce the number of court cases and also resolve media disputes peacefully and effectively. Given the complexities and diversity of media litigation, the use of these methods can help resolve problems, especially in fields that have specialized aspects.
Research Method: This research is analytical and descriptive, and using a comparative study, it examines legal and non-legal methods of resolving media disputes in the two legal systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. For this purpose, first, information was collected regarding the laws and regulations governing the media in both countries and then the methods of resolving media disputes in each of these systems were analyzed. In the first part, information was gathered through a study of legal texts, regulations, and judicial guidelines related to the media in both countries. This information includes media complaint laws, litigation processes, and alternative dispute resolution methods in the Iranian and US legal systems. In the second part, non-legal dispute resolution methods such as arbitration, conciliation, and alternative processes were examined and a comparison was made between the use of these methods in Iran and the United States. For this purpose, secondary sources including academic articles, reports, and analyses available in this field were used. Also, by using comparative analysis, the similarities and differences between the two legal systems in terms of managing and resolving media disputes were examined. The research methodology also includes the analysis of real cases and sample cases from the two countries to show how different legal systems can function effectively or ineffectively in resolving media disputes. Finally, this research used qualitative methods to analyze data and presented the results of comparative comparison and analysis of sample cases to suggest improvements in media dispute resolution methods.
Findings: The results of this study showed that various legal and non-legal methods are widely used to resolve media disputes in different countries and systems, especially in Iran and the United States. In Iran, some of these methods, such as public media courts, are still being implemented traditionally; while in the United States, recently developed laws and methods, such as the media settlement and arbitration system, have been presented. A comparative study of the two legal systems of Iran and the United States shows that in the United States, alternative legal methods such as the settlement system, in which the parties voluntarily resolve disputes through a third party, have been successful in reducing the number of court cases. In addition to reducing the burden on the judiciary, these methods help resolve disputes peacefully and can ensure that the parties will adhere to the final decisions. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, due to the specific legal structure and differences in media laws, many of these methods are less applicable. However, in recent years, some of these legal models, such as arbitration in media disputes, have been introduced and applied. These models are particularly useful in situations where media disputes are complex and require expertise. The results of this research also show that legal systems should pay special attention to the rights of media defendants, as well as the need to protect the public interest and transparency in judicial processes. For this reason, non-legal methods can play a complementary role to the courts in many cases.
Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion in this context showed that legal and non-legal methods can be significantly effective in resolving media disputes; while traditional courts may not be able to resolve media disputes quickly and effectively due to their lengthy process and complexities. Non-legal methods such as arbitration and settlement systems have been proposed as useful and efficient options for reducing judicial workload. In the United States, the settlement system is widely used, particularly in media cases, due to its high flexibility and the ability to reach quick and enforceable agreements. This method is particularly useful given the nature of media disputes, which can often be technical and specialized. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite advances in the use of non-legal methods, these methods have not yet been fully accepted in the media judicial system; however, given the existing capacities and the need for quick and low-cost resolution of disputes, these models can be used alongside judicial methods.  At last, the present research showed that to ensure quality, security, and better implementation of decisions, it is necessary to use a combination of legal and non-legal methods. Furthermore, judicial institutions should gradually support these non-legal methods and design judicial processes in a way that both meets the needs of the media and is transparent and fair.