limit First Amendment free-speech protections and take control of social media to prevent the spread of “lies.” Shlomo Kramer, co-founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm Cato Networks, made the remarks during a CNBC interview, arguing that unchecked speech and disinformation pose a threat to democratic stability.
Kramer said the U.S. must “limit the First Amendment in order to protect it” and proposed that the government oversee content on major platforms, ranking users by “authenticity” and controlling what they can say online. He claimed that in an era of AI and polarized narratives, democracies face unfair disadvantages compared to authoritarian regimes that tightly control information.
The idea has prompted widespread backlash from free-speech advocates and conservative figures. Critics argue that Kramer’s recommendations would undermine core constitutional rights protected in the First Amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech and expression. Some commentators described the proposal as authoritarian and a dangerous expansion of government power into digital speech.
On social media and in political circles, commentators have rejected the notion that government should determine truth online. Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee succinctly responded with “No” to the proposal, while Florida candidates and other GOP leaders pledged to defend the First Amendment if elected.
The controversy comes amid broader discussions about misinformation, AI’s impact on communication, and the role of Big Tech platforms in moderating content. While concerns about harmful disinformation have grown, constitutional scholars note that any government attempt to limit speech would face significant legal challenges and scrutiny under long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence.
Kramer argued that technological solutions are needed to stabilize political systems and combat deceptive content, and that governments must act “before it’s too late.” However, opponents maintain that empowering the state to regulate truth online threatens fundamental liberties and could stifle dissenting viewpoints.
The episode has reignited debate over the balance between free speech and content moderation, and whether private platforms—or the government—should hold ultimate authority over what speech is permissible in the digital age.
