“It’s time to limit the First Amendment”: Shlomo Kramer’s remarks ignite backlash
The cybersecurity pioneer’s comments on government control of speech spark an online uproar. Kramer said his remarks were taken out of context and that he is a supporter of the First Amendment.
Shlomo Kramer, the Israeli billionaire tech entrepreneur who co-founded Check Point, Imperva and, more recently, Cato Networks, is accustomed to speaking about cyber threats in stark terms. But remarks he made last week on CNBC went well beyond the usual warnings about digital vulnerability, igniting an uproar online after he urged Americans to consider limiting one of their most foundational freedoms: the First Amendment.
In remarks that were watched millions of times and quickly ignited backlash online, Kramer argued that governments must restrict freedom of speech in order to preserve democratic stability in the age of artificial intelligence. His target was not merely misinformation, but the constitutional framework that protects speech itself, particularly in the United States.
“You’re seeing the polarization in countries that allow for the First Amendment and protect it, which is great,” Kramer told CNBC. “And I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it. And quickly before it’s too late.”
The phrasing alone, calling for limits on the First Amendment as a means of saving it, was enough to set off alarm bells. But Kramer did not leave his proposal vague. When asked to explain what he meant, he laid out a vision of direct government involvement in controlling online speech.
“I mean that we need to control the platforms, all the social platforms,” he said. “We need to stack, rank the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online and take control over what they are saying, based on that ranking.”
Pressed to clarify whether he was calling on governments themselves to impose such controls, Kramer answered without hesitation.
“The government should, yeah,” he said. “They should do that.”
Kramer’s words echoed the sentiment in his recent interview with Calcalist in which he said that “AI is going to destroy humanity as a liberal society.”
Kramer framed the issue as one of asymmetry: between the speed of technological change and the sluggishness of political systems. Artificial intelligence, he suggested, has turned disinformation and cyber influence into weapons that democratic governments are ill-equipped to counter under existing norms.
“And we need to educate people against lies,” Kramer said. “And governments need to develop cyber defense programs that are as sophisticated as a sub-attack. Today. It’s a 1-to-100 ratio. And really governments are not doing this today at any rate, and enterprises are left fending for themselves.”
In his view, relying on traditional political processes to catch up is no longer sufficient. Stabilizing democratic systems, he argued, now requires using technology itself, even if that means adopting measures that are politically unpopular.
“So you need to use technology in order to stabilize the political system,” Kramer said. “And you need to put adjustments that are perhaps not popular, but necessary.”
The starkest part of Kramer’s argument came when he contrasted the United States with China. Allowing multiple, competing narratives, he suggested, may no longer be a strength in an era of AI-driven information warfare.
“And that’s a big mistake, because if China has a single narrative that protects its inner stability and the U.S. allows for multiple narratives, it puts them in an unfair advantage that long-term is going to cost the stability of the nation,” Kramer said. “So changes must be made.”
Kramer said in response: "I’m glad my comments are sparking a public discussion, though it is important to clarify that some of my remarks have been taken out of context. The critical point we must focus on is the unprecedented rise of disinformation which is driving extreme polarization across the globe. We are seeing a flood of fake news designed to incite anger and dismantle the trust citizens have in democratic institutions.
"My comments were made specifically within the context of this threat. I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment and the fundamental right to free speech. We must recognize that our digital landscape is being weaponized by sophisticated information warfare and coordinated influence campaigns. These operations leverage anonymity and non-human actors to drown out authentic voices and tear at the social fabric of Western democracies. The goal is not to limit the speech of individuals, but to ensure that the public square remains a place for transparent, human debate, protected from the corrosive impact of covert digital manipulation."
