State Opposes Communications Minister's Broadcast Law, Seeks Freeze

The Israeli state, represented by the State Attorney's Office, has sided with petitioners challenging Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi's broadcast law, urging the Supreme Court to issue an interim order freezing its implementation. The state argues that the legislative process was marred by "an unusual and extreme number of fundamental flaws," from its initial drafting without legal counsel approval to its rapid passage through the Knesset. These defects, the state contends, violated Knesset members' right to participate and disrupted the institutional balance between government branches.

The state's response highlights that discussions in the special committee, chaired by MK Galit Distel Atbarian, were "under the de facto control of Minister Shlomo Karhi," who dictated changes without factual basis and systematically ignored legal warnings. The law was also split in its final stages, removing enforcement provisions and dramatically raising the threshold for a "small license" from NIS 80 million to NIS 2 billion. This change effectively exempts major commercial channels like Keshet 12 and Reshet 13 from the requirement to maintain separate news companies.

News 12 submitted an affidavit detailing a February 2023 meeting where Minister Karhi allegedly stated his intention to amend the law to allow Prime Minister Netanyahu to influence broadcast content, overriding license holders' ability to refuse his requests. News 12 argues this demonstrates the law's "improper purpose" of eliminating structural separation between commercial owners and newsrooms, exposing journalists to direct political and commercial pressure.

The State Attorney's Office warns that the law's provisions, including relaxed cross-ownership restrictions and the establishment of a new council selection committee, could cause irreversible changes in the media market, especially before elections and during a sensitive period for press and free speech. Therefore, the state believes the balance of convenience favors freezing the law to prevent the creation of fait accompli situations and regulatory uncertainty until a final ruling.

Conversely, i24NEWS has petitioned the Supreme Court to reject the freeze requests, arguing that an interim order would cause them tens of millions of shekels in financial damage and severely impact their operations. They claim the petitions are driven by established media entities seeking to preserve their monopolies and block fair competition. i24NEWS asserts the law was thoroughly debated and that fears of harming journalistic independence are speculative, especially as existing regulations remain in effect. They also argue that freezing the law before elections would harm public pluralism and the right to diverse opinions.