High Court annuls government decision to close Army Radio

The High Court of Justice overturns the government’s decision to close the Army Radio station, with judges ruling unanimously that the government was guided by an “improper motive” to interfere in editorial content.

The three-judge panel rules to accept petitions against the move that the cabinet approved in December. The ruling makes permanent the court’s February provisional order against the closure.

In separate opinions, judges Daphne Barak-Erez, Alex Stein and Yechiel Kasher say closing Army Radio is not itself illegitimate, but that the evidence shows the government sought to penalize the station for coverage perceived as critical.

Kasher writes in the main ruling that “it’s unconscionable that someone with governing authority will decide that, since they don’t like a broadcaster’s words, the broadcaster’s microphone must be shut off. A government that operates in this manner is distinctly undemocratic.”

Stein, in a concurrence, criticizes petitioners’ argument that closing Army Radio is an assault on freedom of expression. He says petitioners’ description of a theoretically legitimate way to shut down the 76-year-old station is summed up by the Eagles lyric “you can check out any time you like but you can never leave.”

Nonetheless, the judge says it is clear the government acted out of an improper motive to interfere in coverage, given a memo about the closure that Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi sent Defense Minister Israel Katz railing against Army Radio for subjecting soldiers to content that “not only doesn’t support them, but sometimes harshly criticizes their actions.”

Barak-Erez, in her own concurrence, adds that the government’s decision to shutter Army Radio was also procedurally flawed, given the “lack of evidentiary basis” for the allegation that Army Radio is biased, as well as the “bias” of the relevant ministers and some committee members they appointed to study closing the station.

“Indeed, it’s not forbidden for an official, even an elected official, to have a prior opinion or background on a topic entrusted to them. But they may not have a ‘locked’ prejudice… in a manner that turns the decision-making process into an empty sham,” she says.