## Facts

- Editors and journalists for an Israeli newspaper prepared an article sharply criticizing the outgoing head of the Mossad and discussing internal matters and leadership changes.
- Pursuant to a pre-publication censorship regime, the newspaper submitted the article to the Chief Military Censor for review.
- Acting under the Defence (Emergency) Regulations 1945, the Chief Military Censor permitted publication of some parts but barred specified passages as prejudicial to state security.
- The editors petitioned the High Court of Justice for judicial review, seeking permission to publish the censored segments.

## Issues

1. What is the scope of the Chief Military Censor’s authority under the Defence (Emergency) Regulations 1945 to restrict press publication on security grounds?
2. What substantive standard must be satisfied to justify prior restraint of publication as “prejudicial” to state security?
3. To what extent may the High Court independently review security-based censorship decisions, and what deference is owed to the censor’s professional assessment?

## Decision

- The Court partially granted the petition and narrowed the censorship order.
- The Court held the censor’s authority exists but is limited by democratic values, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
- The Court required publication of passages not shown to create a near-certain, concrete, and serious danger to state security.
- The Court upheld censorship only for limited segments for which a specific, identifiable security risk was demonstrated.

## Legal Principles

- Emergency censorship powers must be interpreted narrowly and consistently with democratic values, minimizing infringement on freedom of expression.
- Prior restraint is permissible only upon a showing of a real, concrete, and near-certain likelihood of serious harm to state security; speculative or remote fears are insufficient.
- Critical reporting about public officials, including senior security officials, is strongly protected and may be restricted only upon an especially strong security justification.
- Censorship must be narrowly tailored: measures must be connected to the asserted security interest and limited to what is necessary (e.g., targeted deletions rather than broader suppression).
- Security-based censorship decisions are subject to meaningful judicial review; expertise may inform factual assessments, but the legal limits of authority and the sufficiency of demonstrated danger are for the court to decide.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the existence of military pre-publication censorship while sharply limiting its use, holding that only publication creating a near-certain and serious security danger may be restrained and requiring narrow, reviewable restrictions consistent with freedom of expression.


Schnitzer v. Chief Military Censor, HCJ 680/88, 42(4) PD 617 (Isr. 1989)