In a step that once again targets content circulating on social media platforms, Prime Minister Dr Mostafa Madbouly announced the preparation of a draft law to toughen penalties for what he described as “offensive videos” and “immoral practices”, claiming that the forthcoming legislation does not affect freedom of opinion or what he described as “objective” criticism, but aims to protect society from “immoral practices” which include, according to him, “inappropriate language, crimes of insult and defamation, spreading rumours, and insults to the symbols of the state and society”, considering that these practices pose a threat to social peace and security and undermine the values, the cultural constants and the civilisational and religious heritage of Egyptian society.
Madbouly explained, during the press conference following the government’s weekly meeting, that a government committee had finished preparing a draft of a new law, in addition to amendments to some existing laws, to confront what he described as “practices that threaten society”, noting that the draft is currently under review in preparation for its referral to the House of Representatives at the start of the new legislative term. So far, the government has not disclosed the legal wording of these terms or the criteria that will determine the scope of their application within the bill.
But the announcement comes at a time when the Egyptian legislative system already includes a number of laws that regulate online publishing and punish crimes of insult, defamation, incitement and misuse of means of communication, among them the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law, the Press and Media Regulation Law, as well as multiple provisions in the Penal Code; this raises a question about what the new legislation will add to a system that already criminalises most of the acts the Prime Minister referred to. The bill also revives the debate over the use of general or undefined terms in legislation on the digital sphere, an issue that has drawn criticism from rights organisations and civil society institutions, particularly with regard to phrases such as “the values of the Egyptian family” contained in the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law, which critics have considered loose wording lacking a precise legal definition, opening the door to divergent interpretations when it is applied.
For his part, MP Freddy El-Bayadi, a member of the House of Representatives for the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, says that Egypt does not need to issue a new law under the name of confronting “offensive” or “immoral” practices, as he believes that the current legislative system already includes provisions criminalising acts such as insult and defamation, violation of privacy, electronic blackmail and incitement to violence and hatred, as well as spreading false news. He adds, speaking to Zawia3, that the priority should be to apply existing laws fairly, not to issue new legislation that may impose additional restrictions on freedoms.
El-Bayadi explains that what is most worrying about the bill is the use of terms he described as “loose and undefined”, such as “inappropriate”, “contrary to the constants of society” and “insulting symbols”, pointing out that they lack precise legal definitions and that their interpretations may differ depending on the body applying them. He believes that criminal law should be based on specific acts that result in clear harm, not on uncontrolled moral or social assessments, warning that undefined wording may be used to punish dissenting opinions or sharp criticism.
On the other hand, El-Bayadi stresses his support for criminalising acts that constitute a real assault on the rights of others, such as child exploitation, incitement to violence and hatred, electronic blackmail, violation of privacy, deepfakes and impersonation, affirming that the legislation in force already provides tools to deal with them; political criticism, satire, exposing incidents of corruption and criticising the government or officials, however, fall within freedom of opinion and expression and should not be subjected to general concepts such as “insult” or “threatening social peace”. He concludes that social peace is not protected by criminalising difference, and that values are not protected through vague provisions, considering that the real guarantee of freedom of expression lies in enacting clear and specific legislation that does not allow criminalisation to be expanded or misused against citizens and holders of opinions.
Legislating Restriction
The past ten years have seen a notable expansion in the issuing of new legislation, alongside the activation of existing provisions, to regulate the use of the internet and social media platforms and to confront what the authorities describe as cybercrimes, spreading rumours and insulting individuals or state institutions. The Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law No. 175 of 2018 is the most prominent of these laws: it granted investigative authorities broad powers, criminalised a number of acts related to the use of means of communication and information technology, and also contained provisions that sparked rights and legal controversy, among them Article 25, which punishes infringement of “the family principles or values in Egyptian society”, a phrase that rights organisations and lawyers considered loosely worded because it is not accompanied by a specific legal definition.
In its explanatory memorandum titled “The Legislative Impact of the Crime of Infringing the Values of the Egyptian Family”, Masaar “Technology and Law Community” considered that the wording of the article conflicts with the principle of the legality of crimes and penalties stipulated in Article 95 of the constitution, which requires penal provisions to be clear and specific, so that those they address know the criminalised acts precisely, without leaving room for divergent interpretations. It considered that the phrase “infringing the principles or values of the Egyptian family” lacks a specific legal definition, which broadens the discretionary power in interpreting and applying it, and that the absence of a precise definition may raise problems relating to the guarantees of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence stipulated in Article 96, as well as its potential impact on the right to freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed by Article 65, as the broad scope of interpretation may lead to the prosecution of various forms of content published on social media platforms, including entertainment or creative content.
In this context, human rights lawyer Ahmed Abdel Nabi believes that the Egyptian legal system already includes provisions punishing the acts the government has announced it is targeting, and adds that “what we are witnessing today is a state of legislative inflation aimed primarily at restricting freedom of expression, not at simplifying the legal system or protecting citizens’ rights”, explaining that this step indicates excessive government interest in enacting punitive legislation, in contrast to the absence of parallel steps to strengthen constitutional rights and provide the guarantees necessary to exercise them.
Abdel Nabi questions, speaking to Zawia3, the actual need for a new law, saying that “the existing system already includes multiple provisions, starting with the Penal Code, through the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law, to the Press and Media Regulation Law, all of which include articles punishing crimes such as insult, defamation, blackmail and infringement of private life”. He stresses that the continued introduction of legislation “containing loose terms” may expand the scope of criminalisation and the discretionary power in interpreting terms such as “offensive practices”, which may negatively affect the space for freedom of expression in the digital sphere.
The regulation of content has not been limited to the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law: the Press and Media Regulation Law No. 180 of 2018 granted the Supreme Council for Media Regulation broad powers to supervise media and digital content, including personal accounts with more than 5,000 followers, considering them in some cases media outlets subject to the provisions of the law; this drew criticism from journalists and civil society organisations, who considered that its expanded powers allow restrictions to be imposed on content published outside the traditional media framework.
In a report titled “For a Regulatory and Legislative Environment Supportive of Press and Media Freedom in the Arab World”, issued in 2020, the International Federation of Journalists considered that Article 19 of Law No. 180 of 2018 contained broad restrictions on press and media freedom, because it relies on loose phrases such as “false news”, “incitement” and “discrimination” without precise definitions, and that it is not limited to press and media institutions but extends to personal websites, blogs and accounts with more than 5,000 followers, granting the Supreme Council for Media Regulation the power to take measures extending to the suspension or blocking of the website or account. The report considered that the breadth of these provisions and the vagueness of some of their terms make it difficult for journalists and users to determine the dividing line between permitted and criminalised conduct, citing the case of the investigation of the former editor-in-chief of Al-Masry Al-Youm and a number of its journalists in 2018, who faced a charge of “spreading false news” over a headline about the presidential elections. The report recommended reviewing the law, repealing Article 19 and redrafting the provisions on the blocking of websites, so that blocking takes place by a final judicial decision and for reasons specified exhaustively, in line with international standards for freedom of expression.
From Prosecution After the Act to Prior Monitoring
If existing laws are sufficient, what is new in the bill? Mostafa Fouad, executive director of Humena for Human Rights and Civic Participation, answers that what is most striking in the official statements about the bill is the talk of toughening penalties, speeding up the adjudication of cases and establishing a monitoring unit within the National Telecom Regulatory Authority, which requires, according to what was announced, a legislative cover. He says: “If these indicators are reflected in the final text of the law, we are facing a shift from prosecution that takes place after the act occurs to continuous monitoring followed by a faster punitive track, which raises, in my view, questions about litigation guarantees.”
Fouad explains, speaking to Zawia3, that the government does not appear to need new legislation, since Article 25 of the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law and Article 19 of the Press and Media Regulation Law, along with the Penal Code provisions relating to insult, defamation and spreading false news, already provide a broad framework for dealing with digital content; the issue, in his view, is not about a legislative vacuum but about how existing provisions are applied, stressing that this assessment is based on official statements and the legislation in force, given that the government has not yet published the draft law. He concludes that “any criminalisation must be based on a clear and specific text under which the citizen knows in advance what the criminalised conduct is; terms such as ‘offensive practices’, ‘social peace’ or ‘the constants of society’ are value-laden expressions open to more than one interpretation if the legislator does not set precise definitions for them”, calling for the draft to be published and subjected to a societal dialogue including the Journalists and Media Professionals syndicates and independent civil society organisations before it is referred to parliament, as an essential guarantee for discussing its consistency with the constitution and Egypt’s legal obligations.
This path is not hypothetical. In a position paper prepared by researcher Lobna Darwish, advocacy director at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), the Initiative warned that the government’s announcement that it is preparing a new law to regulate content cannot be read in isolation from a legislative path that began years ago, during which the state expanded its use of provisions to regulate the digital space, and that the announced revisions may lead to the creation of crimes based on loose expressions such as “customs and traditions”, “societal values” and “societal peace”, or to the toughening of existing penalties. It considered that the application of Article 25 of the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law, concerning “infringement of the values of the Egyptian family”, offers a model of how legally undefined terms turn into a basis for judicial prosecutions.
The paper explained that this charge, introduced by the law in 2018, has been widely used in prosecuting content published online, starting with female content creators on the TikTok app, before extending to various categories and patterns of expression and digital work; the course of prosecutions was not limited to political content, but broadened to include dancing, singing, comedy, clothing, dialect, the manner of speaking in front of the camera, work in fields such as cosmetics and tattooing, sharing details of daily life and earning income through the platforms, reflecting a shift of prosecutions from targeting political opinion to imposing broader censorship on patterns of expression and behaviour.
The Initiative cited data from its report “Disciplining Society”, which, after being updated to the end of July 2026, documented at least 545 cases or incidents of prosecution linked to the charge of “infringing the values of the Egyptian family”, affecting 626 people, including 392 women and 234 men, in at least 17 governorates, warning that introducing new general terms into any forthcoming legislation may expand the scope of criminalisation and prosecution in the digital space.
Freedom of Expression and the Conditional Space
Samar El-Husseiny, executive director of the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, places the bill in the context of a state of “growing public discontent”, pointing out that this anger is no longer confined to a particular social group but has extended, by her estimate, to various segments, and that criticism of economic policies no longer appears only in the form of direct comments, but has taken new forms through videos, satirical posts and creative content on social media platforms.
El-Husseiny believes, speaking to Zawia3, that the wording contained in the bill raises rights concerns because it uses “loose” terms such as “offensive practices”, pointing out their similarity to “the values of the Egyptian family”, which has been used to prosecute content creators, and that the absence of a clear definition opens the door to broad interpretations of the behaviours that could be considered violations, explaining: “We do not know precisely what is meant by offensive practices, just as there was no clear definition of the concept of the values of the Egyptian family, which is a relative concept whose interpretation differs according to social and cultural contexts.” She warns that expanding the scope of these terms may bring aspects of personal life and individual expression within the circle of criminalisation, and warns of the possibility of their being used systematically against particular groups, among them the LGBTQ+ community in Egypt.
These concerns intersect with a paper by the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression titled “From Family Values to Terrorism: How the Egyptian Authorities Besiege the Digital Space (TikTok as a Model)”, in which the Association considered that the campaigns prosecuting users of platforms such as TikTok are no longer only about the nature of the content in question, but have raised broader issues relating to the limits of freedom of expression, the right to privacy and fair trial guarantees. According to the paper, the escalation of these prosecutions began clearly in 2020 and relied to a large extent on provisions containing undefined terms, foremost among them Article 25 of the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law No. 175 of 2018, which criminalises “infringing the principles or values of the Egyptian family”; the absence of a clear definition of the concept of “the values of the Egyptian family” broadened the scope for interpreting the provision, allowing it, in the paper’s view, to be used to prosecute multiple forms of digital expression, especially personal, entertainment and artistic content.
The Association relied on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that any restrictions on freedom of expression must be provided by law, linked to a legitimate aim, and necessary and proportionate to it. Its observations were not limited to freedom of expression: it pointed out that the cases of content creators raised problems relating to the right to digital privacy, especially with the examination of personal accounts and previously published content during investigations, which shifts prosecution from the examination of a specific post or item to a broad review of digital accounts and turns digital presence into a potential space for legal accountability; it relied in this regard on Article 17 of the International Covenant, which prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference in private life, and on Article 57 of the Egyptian constitution, which guarantees the inviolability of private life, correspondence and communications. The Association called for a review of the provisions it considers loose, so as to ensure that criminalised acts are precisely defined and to prevent their use in prosecuting legitimate digital expression, for limiting pretrial detention in online expression cases, and for involving content creators, experts and civil society organisations in drafting platform regulation policies, in a way that balances confronting cybercrime and protecting society on the one hand, and ensuring that the regulation of the digital sphere does not turn into a means of restricting freedom of expression or interfering in private life on the other.
While the government affirms that the bill aims to protect society from practices it described as “offensive”, the experts who spoke to Zawia3 believe that the legislative system already includes provisions criminalising most of the announced acts, so the debate is less about the absence of legal tools than about the nature of the new wording and the limits of its use. The text remains unpublished so far, while the new term is read in light of the record of the term that preceded it: 626 defendants under the “family values” clause alone.
