7 hours ago 2

National security or freedom of speech? High Court to hear arguments on Al Jazeera Law

Civil rights, some opposition MKs, and legal experts warned during the legislative process that the law could create a “chilling effect” and deter outlets from reporting freely in Israel.

The High Court of Justice will hear today, in a composition of seven justices, arguments on a petition against what became colloquially known as the Al Jazeera Law - the “Law to Prevent Harm to State Security by a Foreign Broadcasting Corporation,” which passed in April 2024, expired in July, and has been extended by bills ever since.

The issue at hand is of the freedom of speech - against the wide umbrella of “national security” and what falls under it. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which filed the petition, noted, “The hearing will focus on the law’s constitutionality as the court considers whether fundamental democratic principles can withstand wartime pressures on freedom of the press.”

Since April, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi has been promoting a bill that would turn the “Al Jazeera Law” from temporary to permanent. The law, which has been periodically extended, gives the government the power to block operations of foreign media outlets in Israel if they are deemed to be harmful to national security. It has so far been applied to the Qatari network Al Jazeera and the Lebanese outlet Al-Mayadeen. The Government Press Office announced in September that it would revoke the press credentials of Al Jazeera journalists operating in Israel.

In order to avoid a projected chilling effect on foreign media and harm to press freedom, the law included several safeguards: First, for the government to approve the move, all of Israel’s security agencies must provide an opinion and present it to the government, including the “factual foundations” that prove that there is “real harm” to national security; second, the decision will only apply for 45 days, needs to be re-approved every 45 days, and eventually expired on July 31; third, the decision must be brought before the president or vice president of a regional court within 24 hours, and the judges have three days to rule on “changing” the decision or limiting the period of its applicability.

Civil rights experts warn against law

Civil rights, some opposition MKs, and legal experts warned during the legislative process that the law could create a “chilling effect” and deter outlets from reporting freely in Israel. They also pointed out that the law did not actually lead to its intended outcome, since the outlets in question are still available digitally in Israel.

ACRI argued that the law “violates the freedom of expression, the right to information, and freedom of the press.” It also noted that while the law only affected Al Jazeera and Al-Mayadeen, “the government’s expansive interpretation has also affected broadcasts by networks not directly targeted by the law or against which no security claims have been made.” It sees the law as “an attempt to restrict information access during wartime.”

After the law passed in April, ACRI immediately filed a petition, arguing that its “true purpose is to tag and punish foreign media outlets for content that displeases the government and for adopting a critical stance toward the conduct of the war.” A judge upheld the law.

Notably, ACRI connected the issue to what it said was an attempt to “politicize public broadcasting and harm commercial broadcasting,” a reference to the consistent attempts by the Knesset to privatize the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation.

ACRI’s argument is that the law appears to affect only Al Jazeera, but because other massive news organizations use AJ’s broadcast, this was censored as well, citing occasions where this happened with news wires AP and Reuters. That this expansion of interpretation is the dangerous slippery slope, argued ACRI.

After the law passed, Karhi's staff arrived at the Sderot offices of the Associated Press, with a letter signed from him permitting the confiscation of the organization's broadcasting equipment. The office claimed that AP was in violation of the new law due to its broadcast restrictions.

That same day, Karhi revoked the decision, after international outcry.

ACRI executive director Noa Sattath said, “This law represents a dangerous assault on freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The government’s interpretation transforms a security measure into a tool for silencing journalists and restricting the public’s access to diverse information sources. When authorities can shut down any media outlet simply because their content might appear elsewhere, we’ve crossed a red line that threatens the very foundations of democratic discourse.”

The Israeli Association of Journalists requested to join on as amicus curiae, warning that the law seriously harms journalists' ability to do their work.

The issue reached a particular boiling point during the missile exchanges with Iran in June. Israel Police and the IDF worked to prevent the filming and documenting by both Israeli and foreign media of missile impact sites.

However, the directives issued by police disproportionately targeted foreign media, raising questions about press freedom - especially when the location sites became known to the public anyway. While all publications of such fall sites are subject to limitations and review by the IDF Censor, foreign outlets were asked to provide proof of permission even before filming. Police reportedly dismissed photographers who said they were working for international news agencies at these cites, citing visual evidence showing that footage was being used simultaneously by Al Jazeera - a prime example of the bill’s far reach.