Introduction:

Thirty fences, barriers and penalties.

The sanctions set out by the Supreme Council for Media Regulation cannot be called by another name.

The regulations is not just limited to severe and arbitrary penalties under loose accusations, sometimes almost insane, it even violates the constitution by imposing sanctions prohibited in it. For example: suspension, confiscation and closure, under the umbrella of “withdrawing the license‏” as a sanction.

Trying to whitewash such regulations after their publishing does not undo the “crime” of suggesting it in the first place. As it demonstrates the council’s hostility towards press and media‏.

Journalists, media workers, and publishing outlets are not the only victims of such regulations, but the public who will be deprived of enjoying an independent and professional media, leaving room only for a sort of a dictated media.

Ironically, some of the articles of these regulations contradict the council’s laws themselves.

For example, law No. 180 of 2018, for regulating media and press and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, where the council imposes very severe and harsh penalties on the journalist, media worker and media outlet, while article no. 94 states:

“notification the competent syndicate to take the necessary measures concerning the violation committed by one of its members to impose the suitable penalty on one of the bodies under the Supreme Council. The syndicate shall commit to taking the disciplinary measures concerning the responsible person who committed the violation according to its law.”

Hence, the law gave the authority the competent syndicate to punish the journalist, after taking the legal procedures, while guaranteeing all legal rights stipulated by the syndicat’s law.

In this legal critique report, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information suffices with demonstrating some articles, to show the arbitrariness, unfairness, and irrationality embedded in it, along with its blatant violation of the constitution.

Article (2):

The following penalties are to be imposed on whoever allowed the use of or used vulgar, eccentric,  incomprehensible words, hints or gestures that may insult an entity or a person, or that contain satire, sarcasm, threaten or hurt citizens’ feelings‏.    

• A fine of no less than 25 thousand EGP and not more than 250 thousand EGP.‏-
• Notification.
• Warning.
• Obliging the media outlet to apologize in the same manner in which the violation occurred.

This article includes words and terms that are loose like (vulgar, eccentric, incomprehensible, hints, gestures). Which make us wonder what is the criterion upon which the eccentricity and obscenity is determined and who is going to determine it?

What is meant by “incomprehensible”? Is it the colloquial words? What are the hints and gestures that shall be criminalized? Such expressions are going to be a trap to punish a huge number of opinion makers.

Article (3)

One of the following penalties shall be imposed on whoever publishes or broadcasts, rumors, news from anonymous sources, rendered through other media outlets, social media as a source of information without verification from the original sources, or not respecting a balance of different opinions:  

–  Notification
–  Warning
–  A fine of no less than 10 thousand EGP and not more than 25 thousand EGP

-It is allowed to double the penalty and take the suitable legal action if accusations of treason are used.

– It is allowed to suspend the program’s broadcasting, or the outlet, page, website temporarily.

– A fine of no less than 250 thousand EGP and not more than 500 thousand EGP or one of them if the published subject caused uneconomical, social or security damages.

– Obliging the media outlet to publish or broadcast a correction in the same way it committed the violation.

* The article criminalizes rendering news from “other” media outlets without determining what are the “first” media outlets that are not considered “other”!

* It puts the responsibility on whoever shares a news from media outlets to do the job of “authenticating” which is irrational and illogical. Whoever shares a news is not entitled to authenticate it from the original source.

Article (4):

One of the following penalties shall be imposed on whoever used or allowed words or phrases inciting violence, discrimination, sectarianism or racism. Broadcasting or publishing what my threat the national coherence, defaming state institutions, damaging public interests or inciting the public:

– Suspending publishing, broadcasting or banning the page, outlet, program, website for a determined or permanent period.

– Suspending publishing or broadcasting the outlet for a determined period

– A fine of no less than 250 thousand EGP and not more than 500 thousand EGP   

This article left “words and phrases” defaming state institutions and damaging its interest without determination, which can be interpreted with different means, for example, the term “national coherence”! What is national coherence? Most of Egyptians do not know such a term or define it in different ways.

What is the meaning of “inciting the public”? What kind of incitement?

Article (6):

One or more of the following penalties shall be implemented on whoever allows hosting unqualified persons, or falsely presenting them to the public:

– Notification

– Warning the media outlet

The article did not define the “unqualified” persons, are they unqualified in appearance or in expression and discussion capabilities? Or those who belong to certain political parties and streams? Such article opens the door in front of the authorities to ban opposition figures from appearing in the media under the pretext of being unqualified.

Article (11)

Whoever breaches the regulations of media or press coverage for military or security operations or terrorist attacks shall be punished as follows:

– Banning from publishing or broadcasting, temporary blockage for the outlet, program or website

– The Supreme Council for Media Regulation is allowed to suspend the outlet for a certain period according to the violation.

The legal rule stipulates that no penalty without a text, no one shall be punished for breaching regulations except soldiers in military camps, hence, breaching regulations or orders is a right for a journalist and a media outlet, no one shall be punished unless breaching law.

Article (14):

The Supreme Council for Media Regulation or one of its committees is allowed to summon whoever is linked with the subject of violation to investigate its reasons. It is also allowed to open an investigation concerning the breaches before imposing penalties.

The council entitled itself, or one of its committees, to summon and investigate breachers instead of notification the syndicate the breacher follows. A step that exceeds the authorities of the syndicates and public prosecution concerning the investigation and implementing penalties.

Article (17)

The Supreme Council for Media Regulation, in cases of breaching criteria, media codes of ethics, incitement to commit a crime or premeditating  a body or person to implement one of the following penalties or more on the media or press outlet:

• Notification
• Warning
• Suspending publishing or broadcasting the outlet or blocking it

Using the term “premeditating a body or person” through publishing is a term that gives impunity to certain bodies and person from criticism, punishment, uncovering corruption or exploiting influence. Such generalization is considered a door for protecting those who are close to the authorities, including the council, from criticism and accountability.

Article (19):

It is allowed to suspend broadcasting of one of the visionary or auditory programs permanently for national and security considerations.

This article imposes a severe punishment, which is a permanent suspension, for a mysterious crime, which is “national and security considerations, which allows banning every opposing journalist and media figure for “the national interest”.

Article (22):

All decisions issued to implement a suspension of publishing or broadcasting should be rationalized, except if it is linked to national security.

“national security” is a very loose term, that is easily used to block publishing, and it is expected to be used widely.

Article 29:

It is allowed for the council to exempt from punishment or part of it if the breached appeals. The council shall consider the circumstances of the breach – if any – and whether the implementation shall benefit or damage others who are not linked with the breach, or if the breacher vows not to repeat the breach under any circumstances. The council shall double or add punishments in case of repeating the breach according to investigations through its committees and with notification the breachers.

The council shall refer breaches that it sees as media crimes to competent authorities.

The council shall withdraw the license of the outlet in case of expiring three warnings, or at least temporarily suspending it or withdrawing the publishing license.

The council shall take all measures, in accordance to law, to suspend breaches against the media outlet and it shall oblige it to publish or broadcast a suitable response from the damaged authority or person.  

“withdrawing the media outlet license” is a clear violation of article 71 of the constitution stipulating:

It is prohibited to censor, confiscate, suspend or shut down Egyptian newspapers and media

outlets in any way.

Is the Supreme Council for Media Regulation above the constitution?

Conclusion

These regulations are considered an added catastrophe to the press and media field. As professional press and media are rare, yet they are under the custody of absurd articles, arbitrariness, and lack of understanding for the press and media role. It turns journalists and media workers into employees in governmental bodies which are closer to military bodies, obeying orders without discussion.

Such Regulations should not be amended, they should be abolished.