By Cindy Harper – Reclaim The Net
Shlomo Kramer, head of the cybersecurity company Cato Networks and a well-known figure in the tech sector, triggered widespread backlash after suggesting that the United States should consider “limiting the First Amendment” as a way to protect democracy in an age of artificial intelligence and information warfare.
Kramer, who co-founded both Check Point Software, a World Economic Forum partner, and Imperva, told CNBC that democratic societies are now at a disadvantage because their commitment to open expression makes them more vulnerable to manipulation.
He argued that authoritarian regimes have an “unfair advantage” since they can control the information their citizens see, while democracies are constrained by free speech protections.
“I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it,” he said.
He claimed that unrestricted speech online has become a tool for division and that foreign adversaries are exploiting it to weaken public trust and democratic stability.
During the interview, Kramer said governments and major technology companies should directly manage online platforms, determining who may speak and how much influence each voice should have.
“We need to control the platforms, all the social platforms,” he said.
He described a structure that would “stack, rank, the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online,” with speech privileges assigned according to that ranking.
Based on this model, he added that authorities should “take control over what they are saying.”
Kramer framed the proposal as an emergency measure, claiming that AI systems are generating fake content faster than governments can respond.
“The technology is moving much faster than the political system typically can respond,” he said, arguing that stronger technological oversight is needed to “stabilize the political system.”
He contrasted China’s centralized “single narrative” with the multiple narratives found in democratic countries, claiming that the latter makes open societies more vulnerable to manipulation.
His remarks were met with immediate hostility on X, where many users accused him of promoting censorship.
Other users took issue with Kramer’s comparison to China, saying he was endorsing state-controlled information systems.
He said governments should build cyber defense programs “as sophisticated as the sub-attack,” noting that the imbalance between attackers and defenders is “1 to 100.”
Until that happens, he said, private companies are left to bear the rising cost of protection. Businesses, Kramer noted, “can’t afford all these solutions by themselves,” urging broader adoption of shared, platform-based security models offered by companies such as Cato Networks, CrowdStrike, and Wiz.
In comments later provided to The New York Post, Kramer said his words had been taken out of context and reaffirmed his support for the First Amendment.
He explained that his aim was to address online “operations [that] 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,” Kramer told the paper.