The Limitations of Freedom of Expression in Theory and Practice (Between the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Egyptian Law)

Abstract

The divergence of freedom of expression either in Muslim or Western States is one of the most controversial issues that continue to be debated. The scope of restrictions under Egyptian law, which apply Islamic or Shari'a norms, differ from American constitutional law. The purpose of this study is to examine how freedom of expression in the United States of America and Egypt are subject to different limitations. In order to put the study into context, the research examined the justification and methods of freedom of expression in both the United States of America and Egypt. As foundation stones of the debate, the study depended mainly on philosophical theories and many Islamic sources. The researcher examined various cases of freedom of expression and the sources of those cases varied in terms of the level of the Courts. The Egyptian experience can explain how the country’s Supreme Constitutional Court can develop the interpretation of Islamic law to be consistent with democracy. Also, the methods used by the U.S Supreme Court in interpreting the First Amendment, namely the categorical and balancing approach, can explain how the absolutist and pragmatic position of the First Amendment and the complexity of freedom of speech are treated. The plain approaches and the experiences either in the United States of America or Egypt are rich in their principles and norms which are based on the local particularities. The research findings suggest that, although there are some differences of scope and application between the laws of both countries, these should not create a general state of dissonance.