{"id":16810,"date":"2026-08-12T16:48:07","date_gmt":"2026-08-12T14:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/?p=16810"},"modified":"2026-10-07T03:10:43","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T01:10:43","slug":"digital-content-law-egypt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/digital-content-law-egypt\/","title":{"rendered":"626 People Pursued over \u201cFamily Values\u201d Since 2018: What Will Egypt\u2019s New \u201cOffensive Practices\u201d Law Add?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a renewed move against content circulated on social media, Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly announced plans to increase penalties for what he called \u201coffensive videos\u201d and \u201cimmoral practices\u201d. He said the proposed legislation would not affect freedom of opinion or \u201cobjective\u201d criticism, but would protect society against practices involving inappropriate language, defamation, rumours and insults directed at state and social figures. He described these as threats to social peace and security and to Egypt\u2019s cultural, civilisational and religious values.<\/p>\n

The prime minister\u2019s announcement.<\/a><\/p>\n

Speaking after the weekly cabinet meeting, Madbouly said a government committee had completed a draft law alongside amendments to existing legislation. The draft was under review before referral to parliament at the beginning of the new legislative term. At the time of the Arabic report, the government had not disclosed legal definitions of these terms or the criteria that would determine their application.<\/p>\n

Egypt already has laws governing online publication and penalising defamation, incitement and misuse of communications, including the Anti-Cybercrime Law, the Press and Media Regulation Law and the Penal Code. This raises a question: what will the proposed law add when most of the conduct identified by the prime minister is already criminalised? It also revives criticism of undefined expressions such as \u201cEgyptian family values\u201d, which lawyers and civil-society groups say permit widely varying interpretations.<\/p>\n

Freddy al-Bayadi, an MP for the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, says Egypt does not need another law targeting \u201coffensive\u201d or \u201cimmoral\u201d practices. Existing legislation already addresses defamation, privacy violations, online blackmail, incitement to violence and hatred, and false news. \u201cThe priority should be applying existing laws fairly,\u201d he tells Zawia3, rather than imposing additional restrictions on freedoms.<\/p>\n

\n

Al-Bayadi is particularly concerned by expressions such as \u201cinappropriate\u201d, \u201ccontrary to society\u2019s constants\u201d and \u201cinsulting symbols\u201d. Without precise definitions, their meaning can vary between the authorities applying them. Criminal law should identify specific acts causing clear harm, he argues, rather than rely on uncontrolled moral or social assessments. Vague wording could punish dissenting opinions or sharp criticism.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He supports criminalising genuine violations of others\u2019 rights, including child exploitation, incitement to violence and hatred, online blackmail, privacy violations, harmful deepfakes and impersonation. Existing laws provide tools to address them, he says. Political criticism, satire, exposing corruption and criticising officials fall within freedom of expression and should not be subjected to broad concepts such as \u201coffence\u201d or \u201cthreatening social peace\u201d. Protecting social peace does not require criminalising disagreement; clear, specific legislation is the real safeguard against expansive or abusive prosecution.<\/p>\n

<\/svg><\/div>\n

Legislation that restricts<\/h2>\n

Over the past decade, new legislation and renewed use of existing provisions have expanded regulation of the internet and social media. Authorities describe their targets as cybercrime, rumours and abuse directed at individuals or state institutions. Anti-Cybercrime Law No. 175 of 2018 is central to that framework. It grants extensive investigative powers and criminalises numerous uses of information technology. Article 25, which penalises attacks on the \u201cprinciples or family values of Egyptian society\u201d, has prompted legal and rights criticism because it supplies no precise definition of those values.<\/p>\n

In its explanatory memorandum on the legislative impact of the family-values offence, Masaar\u2014Technology and Law Community\u2014argues that the wording conflicts with the principle of legality under Article 95 of the Constitution. Penal provisions must clearly identify criminal conduct so people can know what is prohibited without divergent interpretations. Masaar says the absence of a definition expands discretion, raises concerns about fair-trial guarantees and the presumption of innocence under Article 96, and may undermine freedom of opinion and expression under Article 65 by exposing entertainment and creative content to prosecution.<\/p>\n

Masaar\u2019s explanatory memorandum.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Human-rights lawyer Ahmed Abdel Nabi says Egyptian law already punishes the conduct the government proposes to target. \u201cWhat we are witnessing is legislative inflation primarily directed at restricting freedom of expression, rather than simplifying the legal system or protecting citizens\u2019 rights,\u201d he says. He sees an excessive focus on punitive legislation without parallel measures to strengthen constitutional rights or the guarantees needed to exercise them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He asks why another law is necessary when the Penal Code, Anti-Cybercrime Law and Press and Media Regulation Law already penalise defamation, blackmail and violations of private life. Further legislation containing vague terms could expand criminalisation and the discretion used to interpret \u201coffensive practices\u201d, reducing the space for digital expression, he tells Zawia3.<\/p>\n

Press and Media Regulation Law No. 180 of 2018 also gives the Supreme Council for Media Regulation extensive oversight of media and digital content. Some provisions extend to personal accounts with more than 5,000 followers. Journalists and civil-society organisations have criticised these powers as enabling restrictions beyond traditional media.<\/p>\n

In a 2020 report calling for a regulatory and legislative environment supportive of press freedom in the Arab world, the International Federation of Journalists criticised Article 19 of Law No. 180. It said broad restrictions involving false news, incitement and discrimination extend to personal websites, blogs and accounts with more than 5,000 followers, allowing the council to suspend or block them.<\/p>\n

The IFJ argued that broad wording and unclear terms make it difficult to distinguish lawful behaviour from criminal conduct. It cited the 2018 investigation of Al-Masry Al-Youm\u2019s former editor and journalists over a presidential-election headline. It recommended reviewing the law, repealing Article 19 and rewriting website-blocking provisions so blocking requires a final judicial decision on narrowly specified grounds consistent with international freedom-of-expression standards.<\/p>\n

The IFJ report.<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/svg><\/div>\n

From prosecution after the act to continuous monitoring<\/h2>\n
\n

If existing laws suffice, what is new? Mostafa Fouad, executive director of HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement, highlights official statements about tougher penalties, faster proceedings and a monitoring unit within the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority requiring legislative backing. \u201cIf these indications appear in the final law, we would be moving from prosecution after an act has occurred to continuous monitoring followed by a faster punitive process,\u201d he says, raising questions about judicial safeguards.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Fouad says Article 25 of the Anti-Cybercrime Law, Article 19 of the media law and Penal Code provisions on defamation and false news already provide a broad framework. The issue is how existing rules are applied, not a legislative vacuum. He stresses that his assessment is based on official statements and current legislation because the draft had not been published.<\/p>\n

Any offence must rest on a clear provision allowing citizens to know beforehand what is criminal, he says. \u201cOffensive practices\u201d, \u201csocial peace\u201d and \u201csociety\u2019s constants\u201d can carry multiple meanings unless precisely defined. Fouad calls for publication of the draft and public discussion involving the Journalists and Media Syndicates and independent civil society before parliamentary referral, to assess its compatibility with the Constitution and Egypt\u2019s legal obligations.<\/p>\n

This is not merely a hypothetical concern. In a position paper by advocacy director Lobna Darwish, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights warns that the announcement belongs to a years-long legislative trajectory of expanding digital control. The proposed changes could introduce offences based on vague concepts such as customs, traditions, societal values and social peace, or intensify existing penalties. EIPR sees the application of Article 25 as an example of undefined terminology becoming a basis for prosecution.<\/p>\n

The family-values charge, introduced in 2018, has been widely used against online content, initially including women producing TikTok videos and later extending across forms of digital expression and work. Prosecutions have encompassed dancing, singing, comedy, clothing, accents, presentation before a camera, beauty services, tattooing, sharing daily life and earning income through platforms. EIPR describes a shift from targeting political opinion towards broader regulation of expression and behaviour.<\/p>\n

\n

Its report, \u201cDisciplining Society\u201d, updated through the end of July 2026, documented at least 545 cases or incidents of prosecution associated with the family-values charge, affecting 626 people: 392 women and 234 men in at least 17 governorates. EIPR warns that additional undefined terms could widen digital criminalisation further.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

EIPR\u2019s position paper.<\/a> Disciplining Society.<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/svg><\/div>\n

Freedom of expression within conditional boundaries<\/h2>\n

Samar al-Husseini, executive director of the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, places the proposed law in a context of growing public discontent. In her assessment, anger spans different social groups, while criticism of economic policies increasingly appears in satirical videos, posts and creative content rather than only direct comments.<\/p>\n

\n

She tells Zawia3 that \u201coffensive practices\u201d recalls the undefined family-values expression used against content creators. Without a clear definition, it permits broad interpretations of prohibited behaviour. \u201cWe do not know precisely what offensive practices means, just as there was no clear definition of Egyptian family values\u2014a relative concept interpreted differently across social and cultural contexts.\u201d She warns that personal life and individual expression could enter the scope of criminalisation, including through systematic targeting of groups such as LGBT people in Egypt.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression raises related concerns in its paper \u201cFrom Family Values to Terrorism: How Egyptian Authorities Besiege the Digital Space\u2014TikTok as a Model\u201d. It argues that prosecutions concern not only the content at issue but also freedom of expression, privacy and fair-trial guarantees. The campaigns intensified noticeably from 2020 and relied heavily on undefined provisions, particularly Article 25. The absence of a precise meaning for family values expanded interpretation and exposed personal, entertainment and artistic content to prosecution.<\/p>\n

AFTE invokes Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which restrictions on expression must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. It also highlights digital-privacy concerns when investigations examine personal accounts and past content rather than a specific publication, turning an entire online presence into a potential basis for accountability.<\/p>\n

The association cites Article 17 of the covenant, which prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, and Article 57 of Egypt\u2019s Constitution protecting private life, correspondence and communications. It calls for precise definitions of offences, limits on pretrial detention in online-expression cases, and participation by creators, experts and civil society in platform regulation. The aim is to address cybercrime without turning regulation into a tool for restricting lawful expression or intruding into private life.<\/p>\n

AFTE\u2019s paper.<\/a> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.<\/a><\/p>\n

The government says the proposed law will protect society from offensive practices. The experts interviewed by Zawia3 counter that existing legislation already criminalises most of the announced targets. The dispute concerns the scope and wording of new provisions more than the absence of legal tools. With the draft still unpublished at the time of reporting, its new terminology is being read against the record of the expression that preceded it: 626 people pursued under \u201cfamily values\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Egypt proposes tougher penalties and continuous monitoring of online content, despite existing laws. Rights groups documented 626 people pursued over \u201cfamily values\u201d through July 2026 and warn against further undefined offences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":16042,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[390],"tags":[],"kateb":[728],"class_list":["post-16810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-human-rights","kateb-shimaa-hamdy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/\u0631\u0642\u0627\u0628\u0629.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16810","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16810"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16810\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16811,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16810\/revisions\/16811"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16042"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16810"},{"taxonomy":"kateb","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kateb?post=16810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}