An article published in the Jerusalem Post titled “IDF Censor Updates Restrictions on Reporting Impact Sites” discusses new regulations imposed by Israeli military censors, restricting the media’s ability to report on the locations of missile or drone strikes within the country.
These restrictions—such as the requirement that individuals who print or publish printed matter or publications regarding the location of strikes or hits by enemy war material must first submit to military approval—clearly violate property rights, freedom of speech, and the spontaneous order of the free press.
Libertarian theory suggests that all individuals have the right to acquire, disseminate, and act upon information without interference from coercive institutions, including the state. This imposition constitutes state censorship and government overreach, undermining the fundamental libertarian principle that speech—including the publication of information—is a natural extension of property rights and freedom of contract.
The regulation requiring that individuals who print or publish printed matter or publications regarding the location of strikes or hits by combatants must first submit to military approval is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle, a central ethical principle in libertarianism. The non-aggression principle asserts that no individual or institution may initiate force or coercion against another individual or their property. By compelling private media entities to submit to state review before publishing, the government effectively uses both aggression and coercion against the property rights of journalists and publishers.
Moreover, these restrictions are not only ethically unjustifiable but also economically inefficient. As Hayek argued in his critique of central planning, the state lacks the necessary information to make rational decisions about resource allocation, including information resources. In contrast, the free press—operating in a decentralized and voluntary manner—is far more capable of gathering and distributing accurate and timely information than any bureaucratic censor. However, this is part of the design of these types of actions, not a flaw.
From a practical standpoint, the state’s justification for these restrictions—claiming they are necessary for national security—is both unconvincing and self-serving. Libertarians recognize that the state often uses the pretext of “security” as an excuse to expand its control over civil society. In a free society, the protection of individuals and property would be handled by voluntary institutions and private defense agencies, not by a monopolistic state apparatus that employs censorship as a tool of control.
The Israeli military’s updated restrictions on reporting missile and drone impact sites constitute a clear and unjustified infringement on individuals’ rights to communicate freely and access information. This clear overreach is incompatible with the libertarian vision of a free and prosperous society based on voluntary association, private property, and the rule of law, rather than the arbitrary dictations of a coercive state.
