Using Disturbing the Peace and Public Order to Silence Freedom of Expression
ACRI petitioned the Supreme Court on April 27, 2025 seeking a ruling that the Israel Police may not use the crime of disturbing the peace and public order in order to detain, question, or arrest people over expressions. ACRI also asked the Court to rule that whenever the police seek to investigate a potential expression offense, they must obtain the approval of the State Attorney’s Office before opening an investigation.
Since the outbreak of the war in October 2023, the policy for investigating and prosecuting expressions has changed, and the vast majority of those who have been questioned, arrested, and charged with expression-related offenses of incitement to terrorism or identification with a terrorist organization have been Arabs. Under the State Attorney’s Guideline (Guideline 14.12), opening an investigation into expression-related offenses requires the police to obtain approval from the State Attorney’s Office. However, the police found a way to circumvent the guideline, arresting and questioning people over lawful expressions by using the provision of the law against disturbing the peace and public order, which does not require the approval of the State Attorney’s Office before an investigation is opened.
The petition argued that this approach is a serious violation of freedom of expression. Moreover, given that most of the cases in which the police used the prohibition against disturbing the peace and public order involved Arab citizens and residents of Israel, this amounts to silencing minority political views and silencing people who are members of an ethnic and religious minority.
The Supreme Court ruled on November 3, 2026 to formalize the State’s commitment that when the police open an investigation into expression-related offenses involving suspected incitement, they will obtain approval from the State Attorney’s Office, and that no attempt will be made to circumvent the guideline. The Court noted that the police had clarified their guidelines and procedures, and welcomed “the clarification of these matters, which can contribute to the protection of freedom of expression.” The Court held that, in light of the change that had taken place following the petition, the petition had become moot, and awarded legal costs to ACRI.
HCJ 62102-04-25, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Attorney General
Attorney: Hagar Shechter
For a full list of legal correspondence, see here (Heb).
The petition was written with the assistance of Sivan Tahel, head of ACRI’s Freedom of Protest Unit, and ACRI legal intern Yotam Rotfeld
