Israeli Tech Billionaire’s Call to ‘Limit the First Amendment’ Ignites Fierce U.S. Backlash

Shlomo Kramer says AI-driven threats require curbing online speech to protect democracy — critics warn it echoes authoritarian control

Israeli tech billionaire Shlomo Kramer, the co-founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm Cato Networks, has sparked widespread outrage after suggesting that the United States may need to “limit the First Amendment” in order to defend democracy in the age of artificial intelligence.

In a recent interview with CNBC, Kramer — a serial entrepreneur who previously co-founded Check Point Software and Imperva — argued that rapid advances in AI have tilted the balance of power in favor of authoritarian regimes, leaving democracies dangerously exposed due to their strong protections for free expression.

“I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it,” Kramer said, contending that unrestricted online speech is being weaponized to deepen polarization and destabilize democratic societies.

A Radical Proposal for the Digital Age

Kramer warned that social media platforms have become fertile ground for hostile actors, misinformation campaigns, and AI-generated fake content that governments are struggling to contain. According to him, the pace of technological change far exceeds the speed at which political systems can respond.

“The technology is moving much faster than the political system typically can respond,” Kramer said, calling for technological controls to “stabilize the political system.”

He proposed that governments, in partnership with technology companies, should take direct control of social media platforms. Under his vision, users would be “stacked” and “ranked” based on authenticity, with authorities determining who can speak online — and how much influence their speech should carry.

“We need to control the platforms, all the social platforms,” Kramer said, adding that officials should ultimately “take control over what they are saying.”

Democracy vs. Authoritarian Models

In defending his position, Kramer contrasted the United States with China, arguing that Beijing’s tightly controlled information ecosystem maintains internal stability through a “single narrative,” while democratic nations allow multiple narratives that adversaries can exploit.

While Kramer framed his comments as a necessary emergency response to AI-enabled information warfare, critics quickly accused him of advocating censorship indistinguishable from authoritarian governance.

Swift and Severe Backlash

The response on social media was immediate and fierce. Users on X accused Kramer of promoting censorship and interfering with U.S. constitutional rights. A widely shared post from the account Wall Street Mav declared, “Foreigners have zero business telling us anything,” alongside a clip of the interview.

Others labeled Kramer an “Israeli billionaire” calling for Americans to surrender their First Amendment protections, while several critics likened his proposal to China’s state-controlled speech model. One account, The General, branded Kramer a “tyrant” and cited a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson warning that attacks on a free press signal authoritarian rule.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded bluntly to the controversy with a single word — “No” — while reposting claims that Kramer was advocating speech restrictions to combat antisemitism.

Kramer Pushes Back

Kramer did not immediately respond publicly to the online backlash, but later told The New York Post that his remarks had been taken out of context and emphasized that he remains a supporter of the First Amendment. He clarified that he was not calling for abolishing the Constitution outright, but for restricting certain protections to ensure their survival amid emerging AI-driven threats.

He also stressed the growing imbalance between cyber attackers and defenders, estimating it at “1 to 100,” and argued that governments must build cyber defense programs “as sophisticated as the sub-attack.”

Until that happens, Kramer said, private enterprises are being forced to protect themselves by purchasing costly cybersecurity solutions. He suggested that platform-based security models offered by companies like Cato Networks, CrowdStrike, and Wiz could help address the gap.

A Debate Far From Over

Kramer’s remarks have reignited a broader and deeply divisive debate: how democracies can defend themselves against AI-powered disinformation without sacrificing the fundamental freedoms that define them.

For now, his call to “limit the First Amendment” stands as one of the most provocative interventions yet in the global conversation about free speech, technology, and the future of democratic governance.