🤯 Israeli Billionaire Goes on American Television to Say the 1st Amendment Should End and "We" Should Control All Social Media Platforms. Who is "we" in this conversation???

I truly think Israel fully believes they control the United States of America... because they do!

An Israeli tech billionaire went on CNBC and said the United States needs to limit the First Amendment and take control of social media platforms to control what people can say. I watched the clip. It’s not subtle. It’s not nuanced. It’s a man speaking on American television as if American freedoms are his to edit.

Watch the video at the top of this post.

Before I go any further, I want to ask you from the heart to become a member today. I keep this work free for the world—for readers in Gaza, for students in public schools, for families living in deep poverty, for elders on fixed incomes—because a smaller circle of people who can afford it chooses to carry the cost. Please click here to become a memberand please click here to join as a monthly, annual, or founding member. Your support keeps this work free for them, and even for you when you can’t afford to pay.

Now let’s talk about what you just heard, because I refuse to normalize it.

The man in this clip, Shlomo Kramer, is presented on CNBC as an Israeli cybersecurity executive. And he says, in plain language, that it’s time to limit the First Amendment “in order to protect it.” He then goes further: he says “we need to control the social platforms and take control of what they are saying.”

First: that is authoritarian logic. It’s the kind of sentence dictators say right before they outlaw dissent. “We need to limit freedom to protect freedom” is not a serious principle. It’s a slogan used to sell censorship to people who still want to feel like they’re good and democratic.

Second: the First Amendment is not some decorative American tradition. It’s the spine of a free society. The First Amendment is the line between a country where people can criticize power and a country where power can punish criticism. When someone says “limit it,” they’re saying the quiet part out loud: we want less accountability.

Third: I need you to notice the word he used: “we.” Not “the United States.” Not “Congress.” Not “the courts.” Not “American voters.” “We.”

Who is “we”?

Because “we” is the language of a class that has gotten used to telling America what to do—and expecting America to obey. It’s the language of people who move through Washington like it’s a corporate boardroom. It’s the language of influence, not citizenship. And yes, it’s the kind of language that makes it feel, more and more, like some Israeli elites speak about America as if they own it.

And I’m not saying “Israelis” as a whole. I’m not talking about Jewish people. I’m talking about a very specific phenomenon: powerful, well-connected, well-funded figures who believe the U.S. should rewrite its freedoms to protect Israeli policy from criticism.

That’s what’s happening here.

Because let’s be honest about what’s really being targeted when people demand “limits” on speech. It’s not hate speech, because the same people never seem bothered by hate when it’s aimed at Palestinians, Muslims, immigrants, Black activists, or anyone challenging empire. What they mean—over and over—is limit criticism of Israel. Limit organizing. Limit boycotts. Limit protest. Limit the ability of ordinary people to build moral pressure.

And now they’re saying it openly on American television.

The part that made my jaw drop wasn’t only what he said. It was that the hosts let it sit there like a normal policy suggestion. As if asking to weaken the First Amendment is the same as debating tax rates. As if this isn’t the core freedom that protects every other freedom.

Where was the pushback?

Where was the simple follow-up question: “Do you understand what you’re asking for?”

Where was the line: “Sir, you’re on American television arguing to limit the Constitution of the United States—what exactly do you mean?”

That’s the scandal too: how quickly American institutions normalize attacks on American rights—when those attacks serve power.

Now let me make one thing crystal clear for anyone trying to follow this without a law degree.

The First Amendment restricts the government. It doesn’t mean private companies have to host every post or every video. Social platforms already moderate content. They already take things down. They already throttle reach. They already ban accounts. They already control speech in a thousand ways.

So when someone says “we need to control social media platforms,” they’re not describing the reality of platforms. They’re describing government control, state coercion, or a coordinated pressure campaign to force platforms to silence certain viewpoints.

That is where this becomes a direct First Amendment issue. Because when the government pressures platforms to censor, or builds laws to punish speech it doesn’t like, we are no longer talking about private moderation. We are talking about state power moving against free expression.

And I want you to connect this to what has already happened to so many people who speak for Palestine.

People have lost jobs. Lost accounts. Lost platforms. Lost bank services. Lost contracts. Lost speaking invitations. Lost visibility. Not because they lied, but because they told the truth too clearly and too consistently.

I know what deplatforming feels like. I know what it’s like to be isolated and punished for naming what’s happening.

So when a wealthy figure goes on CNBC and says the U.S. should “limit the First Amendment,” I hear that not as an abstract debate. I hear it as an escalation of a campaign we’ve already been living through: punish dissent, shrink protest, criminalize solidarity, silence the witnesses.

Family, I’m going to say this plainly: you do not “protect” free speech by limiting it. You protect it by defending it—especially for the people you disagree with, especially for the people who are unpopular, especially for the people the state wants to silence.

And if you think this is only about “security,” I need you to ask one question: security for whom?

Because the U.S. government already spends billions on surveillance, on counterterror programs, on cyber defense, on intelligence. The U.S. already has extraordinary tools to pursue actual threats. The push to “limit the First Amendment” isn’t about stopping hackers. It’s about controlling narrative. It’s about controlling public debate.

It’s about controlling you.

And since I’m not here to play games, I’ll tell you what I think is happening underneath this.

A certain class of powerful people—politicians, billionaires, lobbyists, defense contractors—look at the growing moral opposition to Israel’s actions and they don’t see a democratic awakening. They see a threat to their agenda. They see a threat to arms deals, aid packages, diplomatic cover, and impunity.

So instead of changing policy, they try to change the rules of speech.

Instead of ending crimes, they try to criminalize critique.

Instead of answering evidence, they try to erase the conversation.

That’s why a man can sit on CNBC and talk about limiting the First Amendment with a straight face.

And that’s why I’m telling you: do not sleep through this.

If you don’t care about Palestine, you still have to care about this. Because once the First Amendment becomes optional—once powerful people decide “we” should control speech—there is no guarantee it stops at Gaza. Today it’s Palestine activism. Tomorrow it’s labor organizing. Next week it’s environmental protest. Then it’s journalists. Then it’s faith leaders. Then it’s anyone who challenges the story the state wants told.

That’s how democracies die. They don’t die with one dramatic moment. They die through “reasonable” compromises that always seem to target the same people: the powerless, the dissidents, the witnesses.

So yes, I’m outraged.

Outraged that he said it.
Outraged that he said it on CNBC.
Outraged that it was treated like a normal thought.
Outraged that he used the word “we.”

Because the “we” I recognize is not the American people. The “we” he’s talking about is a power bloc that believes your rights are negotiable.

They are not.

If you believe the work I do—calling this out plainly, connecting the dots, refusing the euphemisms—matters, I need you with me. I’m committing full-time to this work in 2026—writing, investigations, podcasts, video—and that means building support staff and infrastructure so we can go harder and reach farther.

Please click here to become a member and please click here to join as a monthly, annual, or founding member. This work stays free for the world, but it only survives if some of you decide to carry it.

Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun

Don’t Stop Here! Below are 3 FREE articles for you:

---

---

---