Prof. Eliav Shochetman, a Hebrew University law professor spoke with Arutz-7 today about the above ruling:
\"It is unprecedented in that the Court has never before nullified a Knesset law to this extent; there were only two previous cases in which it nullified trivial aspects of Knesset laws... \'Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation\' provides in paragraph 4 that the legislator may negate the fundamental right of free occupation [work] for a \'worthy purpose.\' [This would imply that the Arutz-7 law is acceptable]. The Court\'s ruling deals with this question, and states that this is not a relevant consideration in this case, because, for one thing, Arutz-7 was illegal. However, this is very problematic, because Arutz-7 was never declared illegal, and in fact operated on the basis of previous guidelines governing Abie Nathan\'s Voice of Peace station that stated that a station broadcasting from the ocean is not illegal. Arutz-7\'s operations were always based on Communication Ministry legal counsels and on the Assistant Attorney-General to this effect. Therefore, it is unclear to me why the Supreme Court stated that Arutz-7 was operating illegally.\"
\"In addition, Clause 4 of the Punishments Law specifically states that the Knesset has the authority to turn illegal behavior into legal behavior. Therefore, even if we say that Arutz-7 was once illegal - an assertion to which I do not submit - the Knesset has the right to legalize it, thus that Arutz-7 should not \'suffer\' at all from behavior that may have once been illegal... The legislator thus comes in the name of hundreds of thousands of people who do not want to hear radio broadcasts other than Arutz-7; can this not be termed a \'worthy purpose?\' Technical details would have to be worked out, of course, but to call this law illegal is very [problematic].\"
It should be noted that the Court did not nullify the law based on the claim made by Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein, namely that the process by which the law was passed was faulty.
The judges stated in their ruling, \"The spectrum of frequencies for national commercial radio broadcasts is a limited resource that belongs to the entire public… The job of the authorities is to serve as a trustee for the public to preserve this resource and use it for the benefit of the public. In this framework, it is also responsible to allocate it efficiently and fairly among those who wish to utilize it.\" The Court\'s ruling was that the Knesset did not, in fact, allocate it \"efficiently and fairly.\" However, the Knesset legal counsel claimed that it is precisely the prerogative of the Knesset, as the elected legislative body representing the national public, to be the one to decide what is to be considered an \"efficient and fair\" allocation.
\"It is unprecedented in that the Court has never before nullified a Knesset law to this extent; there were only two previous cases in which it nullified trivial aspects of Knesset laws... \'Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation\' provides in paragraph 4 that the legislator may negate the fundamental right of free occupation [work] for a \'worthy purpose.\' [This would imply that the Arutz-7 law is acceptable]. The Court\'s ruling deals with this question, and states that this is not a relevant consideration in this case, because, for one thing, Arutz-7 was illegal. However, this is very problematic, because Arutz-7 was never declared illegal, and in fact operated on the basis of previous guidelines governing Abie Nathan\'s Voice of Peace station that stated that a station broadcasting from the ocean is not illegal. Arutz-7\'s operations were always based on Communication Ministry legal counsels and on the Assistant Attorney-General to this effect. Therefore, it is unclear to me why the Supreme Court stated that Arutz-7 was operating illegally.\"
\"In addition, Clause 4 of the Punishments Law specifically states that the Knesset has the authority to turn illegal behavior into legal behavior. Therefore, even if we say that Arutz-7 was once illegal - an assertion to which I do not submit - the Knesset has the right to legalize it, thus that Arutz-7 should not \'suffer\' at all from behavior that may have once been illegal... The legislator thus comes in the name of hundreds of thousands of people who do not want to hear radio broadcasts other than Arutz-7; can this not be termed a \'worthy purpose?\' Technical details would have to be worked out, of course, but to call this law illegal is very [problematic].\"
It should be noted that the Court did not nullify the law based on the claim made by Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein, namely that the process by which the law was passed was faulty.
The judges stated in their ruling, \"The spectrum of frequencies for national commercial radio broadcasts is a limited resource that belongs to the entire public… The job of the authorities is to serve as a trustee for the public to preserve this resource and use it for the benefit of the public. In this framework, it is also responsible to allocate it efficiently and fairly among those who wish to utilize it.\" The Court\'s ruling was that the Knesset did not, in fact, allocate it \"efficiently and fairly.\" However, the Knesset legal counsel claimed that it is precisely the prerogative of the Knesset, as the elected legislative body representing the national public, to be the one to decide what is to be considered an \"efficient and fair\" allocation.