The Blogging Hounds

Israeli tech billionaire Shlomo Kramer has ignited a political firestorm after publicly urging the United States to “limit the First Amendment” as an emergency response to artificial intelligence and online influence operations. His remarks, delivered during a recent CNBC interview, triggered immediate backlash across social media and Capitol Hill, raising fundamental questions about constitutional freedom, digital power, and who gets to decide the limits of speech in America.

Real Time Pain Relief – A Brand You Can Trust

Background

Kramer is co-founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm Cato Networks and a serial entrepreneur who helped establish Check Point Software and Imperva. During his interview, Kramer argued that modern AI tools have tilted the balance of power toward authoritarian regimes that tightly control information, leaving democracies vulnerable because of 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, claiming unrestricted speech on social media fuels polarization and allows foreign and domestic actors to undermine “the fabric of society and politics.”

The Evidence

Kramer proposed that governments and technology companies should jointly “take control” of online platforms, determining who is allowed to speak and how much influence their speech should carry.

“We need to control the platforms, all the social platforms,” he said.

He outlined a system that would “stack, rank the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online,” with speech privileges determined by that ranking. Authorities, he added, should then “take control over what they are saying.”

Kramer framed the proposal as a defensive response to the rapid growth of AI-generated content, warning that governments cannot regulate quickly enough through traditional political processes. “The technology is moving much faster than the political system typically can respond,” he said.

He contrasted the United States with China’s information system, which he claimed maintains “a single narrative that protects its inner stability,” while Western democracies allow multiple narratives that adversaries can exploit.

2-Week Kit + FREE 4-in-1 Emergency Radio

Public Backlash & Legal Alarm

The reaction was immediate and fierce.

The account Wall Street Mav wrote, “Foreigners have zero business telling us anything,” sharing the interview clip. Others accused Kramer of advocating Chinese-style censorship. One post labeled him a “tyrant” and cited Thomas Jefferson’s warning that attacks on a free press signal authoritarianism.

Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) responded bluntly: “No.”

Critics rejected attempts to frame the proposal as anti-antisemitism policy, noting that Kramer repeatedly argued for direct government control over speech and platform enforcement mechanisms. Kramer later told The Post that his comments were taken out of context and insisted he supports the First Amendment.

Strategic Implications

Kramer’s remarks expose a growing fault line in the digital age: the collision between constitutional liberty and the expanding power of algorithmic control. His proposal would concentrate enormous authority in the hands of government regulators and technology corporations, effectively outsourcing constitutional rights to unelected digital gatekeepers.

While framed as “defense,” such systems historically evolve into permanent surveillance and censorship regimes. Once speech is “ranked,” those who control the ranking control society.

Fruit, Veggie & Snack Mix (122 servings)

Prophetic Context

Scripture warned of a coming system where buying, selling, and participation in society would require compliance with centralized authority (Revelation 13:16–17, NASB 1977). Control of speech and information is the gateway to that system. What Kramer describes is not merely cybersecurity policy — it is infrastructure for technocratic governance.

Conclusion

Kramer’s call to restrict America’s most sacred liberty reveals how rapidly elite institutions are drifting toward authoritarian solutions in the name of “stability.” The backlash shows Americans instinctively recognize the danger: when speech must be “protected” by limiting it, freedom itself is already under attack.

---

Affiliate Disclosure:
Some links in my articles may bring me a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support of my work here!

End of the Year Sale – EMP Shield’s family of products are designed to protect against electromagnetic pulse (EMP), lightning, power surges, and coronal mass ejection (CME)

 My Patriot Supply – Take advantage of limited-time deals on emergency food kits, water filtration, solar backup systems, and much more.