Beyond Mada Masr’s license: How authorities seek to subdue independent journalism

When the Mada Masr website launched in 2013, the Press and Media Regulation Law, which governs website licensing, had not yet been enacted. Now, after 13 years of journalistic work, the outlet’s editor-in-chief, Lina Attalah, was referred on Oct. 22, 2026, to a misdemeanor court on charges of establishing and operating a website without a license, with a hearing scheduled for Oct. 27.

For 13 years, Mada Masr has published news and investigations. Now simply running the site has become a criminal charge. Under the licensing system, the state decides whether a news website may operate at all, which puts the institutions Mada Masr investigates in charge of deciding whether it can keep investigating them. The outlet’s reporting lets the public scrutinize how the authorities do their jobs, but the platform that carries that reporting exists only with their permission. In effect, the press’ right to hold power to account is confined within administrative limits that power itself sets.

Conflict of interest

The dispute over Mada Masr’s license began after the passage of Law No. 180 of 2018 on the Regulation of the Press and Media, which required all websites, existing and new, to obtain a license from the Supreme Council for Media Regulation. Mada Masr submitted an application that same year and paid the required fee, but the council rejected it in January 2021. In May 2023, the Administrative Court upheld the rejection, ruling that the decision’s legality must be evaluated based on the documents before the council at the time it was made.

The ruling did not cover a new application that Mada Masr’s defense team says it submitted in June 2023, which remained pending without a decision until the editor-in-chief was referred to trial. During that time, the organization kept publishing while the legal status of its website remained in limbo. On Oct. 21, 2026, the Supreme State Security Prosecution questioned Attalah regarding the site’s status, as well as an investigation the outlet had published on prisons. The following day, she was referred to the misdemeanors court on charges of establishing and operating the website without a license.

The upcoming trial reveals how the licensing requirement undermines press independence long before any verdict is delivered. Article 6 of the media law prohibits establishing or managing a website without a license from the Supreme Council for Media Regulation. Under this rule, whether a journalistic platform may legally operate depends entirely on an official decision.

Under the licensing bylaws, a specialized committee reviews each application, the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority is consulted, and clearance is required from what the bylaws call “the concerned agencies” before a license is granted. The final decision rests with the council, while the outlet retains the right to appeal before the Administrative Court. Reviewing an application therefore goes beyond verifying who owns, runs, and funds an outlet: it requires sign-off from several arms of the state. Whether a news website may legally exist becomes a matter for an administrative process spanning multiple institutions.

The licensing system shows its teeth when operating without the council’s approval becomes grounds for prosecution. Article 105 of the Law on the Regulation of the Press and Media sets a fine of 1 million to 3 million Egyptian pounds ($18,000 to $56,000) for infractions including the licensing requirement, and mandates the closure of the outlet and the confiscation of equipment used in the offense upon conviction. The Public Prosecution investigates and refers the case; the court rules on the charge and imposes the penalties the law prescribes.

What is at stake in Mada Masr’s trial goes well beyond whatever sentence the court hands down. The law allows a news website to be shut down and its equipment seized over a licensing violation, with no requirement to show that any story or investigation caused harm. A dispute over an administrative permit can thus become an existential threat to the publication itself.

Blocking before banning

In May 2017, before the current media law was passed, the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), which tracks internet censorship, recorded that Mada Masr was inaccessible across certain Egyptian networks. Tests revealed variations among service providers, with technical methods used to disrupt access to the site. The website continued publishing, while internet users in Egypt struggled to access it through conventional means.

On Oct. 29, 2023, the Supreme Council for Media Regulation announced a six-month block on the website and referred the case to the Public Prosecution. In its published decree, the council cited the site’s unlicensed operation and its publication of what it described as “false news” regarding the war on Gaza and national security. This public order, issued by an identified body with stated grounds, contrasts with the technical blocking detected in 2017, which did not identify the authority responsible. Yet both episodes demonstrate how public access to journalism can be restricted through different channels, even while an outlet continues producing content.

Blocking alters the relationship between a news organization and its readers. Some users manage to access reporting through mirror sites, social media, or circumvention tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs), but that requires extra effort and technical know-how. The burden grows heavier still for readers who look for news through search engines rather than through the outlet’s social media accounts.

Returning to the prison investigation, publishing the complaints of families and lawyers makes their accounts accessible beyond the detention facilities themselves. The value of that access, however, depends equally on people’s ability to read, share, and discuss the reporting. Digital blocking thus narrows the reach of independent information, even while its production persists.

The public’s ability to access reporting is inseparable from an organization’s financial sustainability. Independent journalism needs money to pay reporters, gather information, run a website, and reach readers.

Added to this is the cost of meeting regulatory requirements and pursuing litigation. The licensing bylaws set a fee of 50,000 pounds (about $900) for an application, alongside a minimum capital requirement of 100,000 pounds (about $1,800) for the owning company. Mada Masr paid the fee for its initial application but never received a license. Meanwhile, fines, closure, and confiscation remain active statutory risks upon conviction, alongside the expense of legal battles.

Not every outlet can bear these burdens equally. A well-resourced organization might absorb a fee, a fine, or a court dispute, whereas a smaller outlet cannot finance its operations under the same conditions. When exercising press freedom is conditioned on steep regulatory costs and the ability to endure litigation and penalties, media diversity is dictated by financial means. Survival in the media landscape is determined not only by what an outlet is permitted to publish, but also by who can afford the prerequisites to remain in the field.

Independent journalism facing repression

The Mada Masr case reveals that pressure on independent journalism can persist long after a specific legal battle ends. Licensing, website blocking, and criminal prosecution are separate tracks, each governed by different entities and procedures, yet an outlet bears their combined weight. A newsroom may continue publishing despite a licensing dispute, even while some readers cannot reach it and its managers face trial. Defending its ability to operate turns into simultaneous battles against multiple state institutions, where resolving one issue offers no guarantee that other restrictions will be lifted.The authorities thus keep levers over the survival of an outlet that investigates them, without ever having to interfere directly in what it publishes.

The consequences reach beyond any one outlet’s case. The rules that make launching a website conditional on official approval, and expose it to closure, apply to every news platform, and outlets differ widely in their capacity to endure long, costly proceedings. The terms of staying in the media sphere become part of an unequal balance of power between the state and the watchdogs that scrutinize it.

The mere possibility of compounding administrative, judicial, and technical pressures is enough to make an independent outlet’s ability to sustain its work dependent on its resources and on decisions made by external official bodies. In this way, the landscape of journalism can be reshaped before an official order is issued to shut down any platform. Abolishing prior licensing is therefore essential to addressing this dynamic, even though it does not eliminate other instruments of control.

These facts demonstrate that mechanisms of suppression can intersect without one replacing another. If establishing websites is made subject to simple notification while blocking and prosecutions remain active tools of pressure against journalists, the registration procedure will change, but operational freedom and audience access will remain under threat.

Dismantling this system begins by ending the prosecution of Lina Attalah and any other journalistic institution over licensing, and lifting the restrictions that prevent the public from accessing news websites. It also requires ending the use of digital blocking and criminal prosecution to pressure journalistic work, and subjecting decisions that affect an outlet’s continuity and public access to effective judicial oversight.

This includes legally requiring competent authorities to state the grounds for blocking or suspension orders and providing an expedited appeals process, ensuring that drawn-out proceedings do not paralyze journalistic work before the legality of those decisions is adjudicated.

At the legislative level, prior approval for establishing websites should be repealed along with the associated penalties of closure and confiscation. In its place, a notification system should be enacted that allows individuals and groups to launch journalistic platforms without awaiting state permission. This right should extend to nonmembers of the Journalists Syndicate, paired with an obligation for outlets to provide and update specific disclosures regarding their ownership, management, and funding sources, while guaranteeing the right to appeal any measures taken against them.

Settling Mada Masr’s status may end the dispute immediately surrounding it, but it will not protect other organizations from the same apparatus as long as it remains intact. Press independence ultimately hinges on the ability of platforms to investigate state actions and bring the accounts of those subject to power to the public, without the institutions under scrutiny holding the power to suspend or block them.