The Legal Regulation of Defamation and Libel on Social Media Platforms: Comparative Study between the Kurdistan Region and the United States.

Abstract

This comparative study analyzes the legal frameworks governing defamation on social media platforms, highlighting key philosophical and legal differences between the Kurdistan Region and the United States. The problem addressed in this study lies in the sharp contrast between the ‘criminal deterrence’ approach implemented in the Kurdistan Region, which creates legal overlap that threatens press freedom and produces a ‘chilling effect’ encouraging self-censorship, and the constitutional protection of free speech in the United States, which relies on the principle of tort liability and civil compensation for defamation.

The study adopted a descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach to examine legal texts and assess their implications. The findings indicate that the criminal classification of publishing offenses in the Kurdistan Region, particularly under the Telecommunications Equipment Law No. 6 of 2008, contradicts the guarantees of the Press Law No. 35 of 2007, as it places the entire burden of proof on citizens or journalists to protect public officials. In contrast, the American legal system provides extensive protection for public discourse by requiring the standard of ‘actual malice’ for prosecuting public figures and through the development of anti-SLAPP laws to prevent frivolous lawsuits. The study concluded with a set of recommendations for decision-makers in the Kurdistan Region, most notably: the urgent need to amend Article 2 of the Telecommunications Law to eliminate vague language; a gradual shift towards ‘civil deterrence,’ replacing custodial sentences with financial compensation in publishing cases; and the development of procedural mechanisms to counter malicious lawsuits to safeguard freedom of speech and public oversight.”