On the other hand, the judge v. Hendel He refrained from taking an unequivocal position on the issue, while expressing a more cautious position, according to which the proper status of public broadcasting depends on time, place, and culture, and therefore it is not surprising that different countries have reached different conclusions on this matter (see paragraphs 2-4 of his opinion).
Similarly, even my friend, the judge D. Barak-Erez, refrained from deciding the constitutional questions that arose, in view of the redundancy of the petition (Namein paragraph 4 of her opinion). In the meantime, the judge emphasized D. Barak-Erez In addition to the advantages inherent in public broadcasting, the state's control of a media outlet is not without risk, but is liable to give rise to a different kind of violation of freedom of expression. Thus, my colleague noted that: "The danger that lies ahead, all the time, is that public broadcasting, which is based on the activities of administrative bodies, will be subject to governmental influence, in a way that will create a different, even more dangerous bias in the media arena" (Namein paragraph 3 of her opinion).
- Thus, given that the argument that the closure of the station will infringe on freedom of expression to the extent that justifies that it will be done in primary legislation based on the recognition of the state's positive duty to conduct public broadcasting, or at least to refrain from closing it from the moment it was established, I am of the opinion that there can and is a real difficulty in this argument.
- I am not required to express my position on the question of the existence of a positive duty imposed on the state to conduct public broadcasting, since, even if we accept the assumption of Deputy Attorney General Levin as quoted above, according to which the state may have such a duty, it is clear that this duty does not include the obligation to maintain two public broadcasting stations (and Deputy Attorney General Levin did not think otherwise).
In this context, the petitioners and the Attorney General claim that Levin's opinion was based on the situation that existed in 2022, while since then there have been substantial changes in the local media market, stemming from a series of measures promoted by the current government, which, they claim, have harmed the free media in general and public broadcasting in particular. As an example of these steps, the petitioners and the Attorney General detailed the paralysis of the Public Broadcasting Corporation's board, which was done by removing it from the position of chairman of the search committee for the appointment of council members, a step that effectively prevented the appointment of replacements to the board members of the Israel Broadcasting Corporation who resigned, and thus did not allow the council to function. In addition, the petitioners and the Attorney General voted to advance the Communications (Broadcasting) Bill, 5785-2025 (it should be noted that on June 17,2026, the Knesset passed, in its second and third readings, the Communications (Broadcasting) Law, 5786-2026 (hereinafter: The Communications Law)). According to the petitioners and the Attorney General, the proposed amendment to the bill seeks to cancel most of the regulation that applies to news and current affairs broadcasts on commercial channels, including arrangements intended to ensure the independence and professionalism of news broadcasts. In addition, it was claimed that the government is promoting a series of bills relating to the Public Broadcasting Corporation, including proposals to close it completely, reduce its budget, and change the manner in which its council is appointed so that it will be under the control of the government and the Minister of Communications.