Introduction

Hujjat al-Islam Seyed Hamid Mirkhandan is among the scholars who have completed advanced studies in jurisprudence at the Qom Seminary and earned a doctorate in media jurisprudence from a university. This background makes him one of the most qualified individuals to discuss media jurisprudence and its nature. As a faculty member of the IRIB University, in this exclusive interview with Contemporary Jurisprudence, he explores the essence of media jurisprudence. According to him, although a clear distinction has been made between art and media, such a distinction between art jurisprudence and media jurisprudence has not been established and may not even be feasible. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with a member of the academic council of the Department of Jurisprudence of Culture, Art, and Media at the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is media jurisprudence, and what topics does it address?

Mirkhandan: Media jurisprudence encompasses jurisprudential discussions that revolve around the phenomenon known as media. Naturally, this phenomenon requires some subject analysis and a preliminary definition. To elaborate, media have existed as long as humanity, and the mission of the Prophet (PBUH) was tied to media. What is relevant in media jurisprudence is that when the term “media” is used broadly, it refers to modern mass media, such as printed books, newspapers, radio, television, and cinema.

There is also a more specific use of the term “media,” which refers to television in particular. When the term “media” is used without any qualifiers, it sometimes specifically denotes television. Thus, media jurisprudence has both a general and a specific connotation. Of course, we now also have new digital media, which are also discussed under media jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the difference between media jurisprudence and similar jurisprudential fields, such as art jurisprudence, virtual space jurisprudence, cultural jurisprudence, and others?

Mirkhandan: If we consider media in its specific sense, meaning modern media as a tool or means of communication, and define communication as the “transfer of meaning,” then media is a means for exchanging and transferring meaning.

This definition of media distinguishes it from other fields that may overlap with it. More precisely, media jurisprudence is discussed in jurisprudence because it pertains to a communicative tool for exchanging and transferring meaning. In other words, media jurisprudence is a field that addresses jurisprudential issues concerning both traditional and modern mass communication tools, such as the internet and social networks that are active today. This aspect of message transmission and meaning exchange distinguishes media from artistic disciplines and separates it from cultural jurisprudence. However, media jurisprudence might fall under cultural jurisprudence, as media are involved in transferring culture, and culture, in one sense, deals with meaning.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Are there issues in media jurisprudence that completely overlap with other fields, such as art jurisprudence, and if so, under which jurisprudential field do these issues fall?

Mirkhandan: It is possible that media like cinema, which are also considered art, may lead to an overlap between the discussions of art jurisprudence and media jurisprudence. However, if we pay close attention to the nature of the issues, this overlap can be avoided. In other words, if these issues are examined from an artistic perspective, they fall under art jurisprudence; if they are discussed in terms of meaning transfer, they are considered part of media jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: So, in reality, there is no overlap?

Mirkhandan: Artistic and media-related discussions are distinct and separate, meaning there are two distinct domains: one for artistic discussions and another for media-related discussions. However, in jurisprudential discussions—such as the jurisprudence of cinema as an art or as a medium—this distinction is not very precise, and it is possible that jurisprudential issues may overlap.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the chapters, categories, and most important issues in media jurisprudence?

Mirkhandan: If we consider media in the specific sense of television, then the categories of media jurisprudence would essentially be those of television jurisprudence. However, if we take media in its general sense, meaning mass media, then each medium—such as books, newspapers, magazines, radio, and television—becomes a category within this jurisprudential field.

It should also be noted that there are broader discussions in media jurisprudence that are not specific to a particular medium, such as issues related to print media, under which various media fall. If we wish to include these discussions under media jurisprudence, it might be appropriate to categorize the topics into print media, visual media, and auditory media. Each of these categories would then include subtopics addressing the different types of that medium; for example, auditory media would cover issues related to radio, podcasts, internet radio, and so forth.

Of course, these categorizations are essentially proposals that, over time, through critiques and reviews, will be refined and improved.