Similarly, it was held that in the absence of explicit authorization in a law or municipal bylaw, mayors or a local authority may not disqualify advertising or remove signs solely because of their content, or because of a discrepancy between the message expressed therein and the values of the authority or the values of the majority of its residents (see, for example: Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 1798/20 Middle East Forum Israel v. Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality, paragraphs 7-8 of the opinion of my colleague Justice A. Stein [Nevo] (7.1.2021); Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 4058/16 Givat Shmuel Municipality v. Arik Institute for Reconciliation, Tolerance and Peace A different appeal Aryeh Zvi Frankenthal, paragraph 13 of the judge's judgment Y. Danziger (26.6.2017)).
These words are true, and even more so, in our case. The closure of a radio station because the opinions expressed in its broadcasts are not to the liking of those with governmental power, is a decision based on which the underlying consideration is an unacceptable, clear and clear consideration. The seriousness of the matter is even heightened when the reason for the desire to silence a broadcaster, to stop the broadcast of a certain program, and certainly to shut down an entire station, is that the content broadcast in it expresses positions that do not conform to the government's position, or criticize its actions and policies. Already more than sixty years ago, the judge noted M. Landau Because:
"A government that takes upon itself the authority to determine what is good for the citizen to know, ends up also determining what is good for the citizen to think; And there is no greater contradiction than this for true democracy, which is not 'guided' from above" (Levy case, at p. 2416).
An authority that seeks to suppress activity or expression for reasons that are inconsistent with the government's position, or for reasons that they criticize it, is acting contrary to the basic principles on which a democratic regime rests, in which the protection of free discourse, including criticism of the government, is a cornerstone. An authority that acts in this manner does not act in order to fulfill the purpose for which it was granted its authority in the first place, but rather mobilizes the authority in its hands, as the trustee of the public, in order to promote the narrow interest of those holding the reins of power at the time - their very holding on to power and perpetuating it, while silencing voices of criticism (see: Matter The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, paragraph 76 of the Deputy President's judgment H. Melcer; Adam Shinar "Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Funding and the principle of non-commemoration" Sentences on the website 12:29 (2018)). This, in particular, is a consideration completely alien to the purpose for which the authority was entrusted with its authority.
- In connection with the issue of the closure of the station, another reason arose, which was mentioned, inter alia, the discussions of the previous committees that dealt with the subject, the recommendations of the advisory committee in our case, and the explanation given by the government for its decision to order the closure of the station. According to this reasoning, there is room to close the station, or at least to make significant changes to it, due to the need to detach engagement in politics and current affairs from a broadcasting station controlled by the military, a significant part of whose presenters and employees are soldiers serving compulsory service. The purpose underlying this argument is to preserve the army's statehood and its image as a body that transcends political disagreement.
00