From the EU’s banning Russian channels by immediate fiat, to Britain’s revoking broadcasting licenses due to unfitness, and seizing by the US of domains of the "Axis of Evil", it turns out that the world's major democracies understand perfectly well that freedom of speech is not a national suicide pact.
The public debate in Israel surrounding the closure of hostile media outlets is often conducted in apocalyptic tones. Any attempt to restrict the broadcasts of an entity that encourages terror or serves as a propaganda arm of the enemy immediately hits a brick wall of jurists and commentators warning of a "mortal injury to freedom of speech" and a slide toward a dark regime.
However, a comprehensive report by Im Tirtzu shatters this myth and presents a simple and compelling truth: the most advanced Western democracies do not hesitate to block propaganda mouthpieces when their national security is on the line.
The facts, backed by official documents from the European Union, the US government, and the British regulator prove that the right to preserve democracy overrides the right of its enemies to abuse it.
Europe’s Russian lesson
The most distinct case occurred immediately upon the Russian invasion of Ukraine. On March 1, 2022, just one week after the war broke out, the Council of the European Union adopted an unprecedented decision (Council Decision 2022/351): a sweeping ban on the broadcasts of Russian media outlets, led by RT and Sputnik.
The Europeans did not stop at just blocking TV channels but expanded their ban to include internet service providers, video-sharing platforms and apps, reasoning that Russian activity constitutes a "significant and direct threat to the Union’s public order and security."
And what about the EU’s judicial system? Unlike the situation in our regions, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rejected the petition of the Russian channels and backed the government's decision. In a detailed judgment from July 2022 (Case T-125/22), the court established an important principle: freedom of expression is not an absolute right. The European judges emphasized that audiovisual media has a strong and immediate influence; therefore, when it is used to justify violence under foreign state control, it loses its democratic protection.
Britain: "not fit to broadcast"
The United Kingdom, the cradle of the parliamentary system, did not remain indifferent either. The British media regulator, Ofcom, revoked the broadcasting license of the Russian network RT in March 2022, with immediate effect. The regulator's official statement explicitly stated that, given the circumstances and RT’s link to the invading state, the network no longer meets the definition of a "fit and proper" body to hold a broadcast license in the UK.
This was not the first time that the regulator so acted. In 2012, Britain revoked the license of the Iranian channel Press TV. The British regulator took this step after the channel aired forced confessions of a journalist and operated under direct editorial control from Tehran, in violation of British law. The regulator understood then what many in Israel still struggle to internalize: an entity serving as a weapon in the hands of a hostile regime has no place on the nation’s screen.
The US and France: iron fists against media terror
Across the ocean, in the home of the First Amendment, authorities also did not hesitate to act decisively. In June 2021, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the seizure and removal of 33 websites linked to the "Iranian Islamic Radio and Television Union" (IRTVU) and militias linked to Hezbollah. The official American statement justified this by noting that the sites were spreading disinformation and operating in violation of US sanctions as part of a malicious influence campaign.
France went even further, and in 2018 adopted a law to combat information manipulation. The law empowered the French regulator (now Arcom) to suspend or revoke licenses of broadcasters controlled by foreign states if they disseminate false information that harmed the "fundamental interests of the nation" or disrupts democratic processes.
Conclusion: blocking hostile media is not anti-democratic, rather it is a shield of democracy.
This international review leads to one clear conclusion: the Western world recognizes that the current battlefield contains media weaponry.
The most liberal states have come to understand that freedom of speech and freedom of the press cannot serve as a sanctuary for entities seeking to sow destruction, violence, and harm to national security.
The use of these measures in Israel would not be a "danger to democracy," but exactly the opposite: it would help instill the principle of "defensive democracy." As shown by legal and governmental sources worldwide, restricting hostile channels is a necessary, legal, and accepted way to protect democracy from those who seek to destroy it from within.
It is time for Israel to stop apologizing and to start learning from the world how to truly protect itself.
Shai Rosengarten is the co-CEO of Im Tirtzu and a major in Israel’s naval reserves.
The Hebrew article was published in “Mida”.