The research examines how official censorship is reported to limit citizen journalists’ freedom of expression across Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia. By studying legal documents, NGO reports and media regulations through qualitative case study analysis, the research reveals four key censorship techniques, including ambiguous laws and ideological justifications, alongside digital monitoring and the removal of journalist legitimacy. The findings show that censorship operates through the interaction of legal ambiguity, ideological justification and digital control, enabling the systematic marginalisation of citizen journalists while maintaining a façade of legality. The legal system, public disapproval and punitive actions against citizen journalists result in their complete silencing and loss of legitimacy. The study expands current knowledge of legal authoritarianism and digital repression and develops a systematic approach to analyse parallel information-control methods across supposedly different political systems. The research shows that methods to silence communication are part of established governance operations rather than short-term, hostile measures triggered by uprisings. Results show that governments use discreet methods of censorship, which influence permissible speech boundaries while leading digital users to internal control of their own discourse. The research contributes to academic discussions about authoritarian survival mechanisms, such as rights protection and independent media freedom in the Middle East.
Alsahhaf et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: