In “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about how censorship often becomes an insatiable appetite once countries go down the road of speech regulation. There is no better example than the Dutch and their recent ban on public ads for meat and fossil fuels. Activists have imposed similar limitations on advertising for products in the United States, from alcohol to tobacco. However, the Dutch law reflects how this tendency can metastasize into shielding citizens from unhealthy choices or influences.
It appears that Dutch painters such as Pieter Aertsen (with his work A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms, above) were promoting harmful imagery in their work. As for Rembrandt’s “Slaughtered Ox,” the Dutch master is now little more than a climate change denier.
Starting on May 1, the ban on such images became part of Amsterdam’s push to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. While purportedly neutral on carbon, it is manifestly negative on free speech.
As with other anti-free speech measures in Europe, this push again came from the left. The GreenLeft Party’s Anneke Veenhoff explained “I mean, if you want to be leading in climate policies and you rent out your walls to exactly the opposite, then what are you doing?”
The answer is engaging in free speech.
This is, of course, commercial speech, which is often subject to a lower level of protection. However, this shows the danger of using the differential standard to target products or industries viewed as unhealthy or ill-advised for consumers.
In Amsterdam, the ban will cover industries such as airlines, including KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, one of the largest employers and revenue generators in the country.
Notably, activists compare this to cigarette advertising bans, confirming the very slippery slope danger that those companies raised when they were targeted.
Hannah Prins, a paralegal at Advocates for the Future, is quoted as saying, “I don’t think it’s normal to see murdered animals on billboards. So I think it’s very good that that’s going to change.”
Other Dutch cities are now following suit, including Haarlem, Utrecht, and Nijmegen.
Of course, prostitutes still advertise live in Amsterdam and marijuana is a major industry for tourists. If you want drugs, there are ample choices. However, if you want a steak, you will have to rely on word-of-mouth directions.
It’s Europe Baby! This is where Common Sense and Logic come to die! But not to worry as the new immigrant inhabitants of Europe will soon toss the know-nothing silly WASPs to the side and make them follow the culture they brought with them! Want to see a recent version of what Europe will become? Just look at South Africa – first you have the transition of power to your new formally disaffected rulers, then you have domination of the society through government revenge processes, followed by disintegration of civil rule of law, culminating in lawless chaos and graft. Enjoy Europe, your golden opportunity is arriving soon!!
That we are at the point anyone will condemn our omnivorous natures and one of the most nutritionally complete things we can eat while extolling the virtues of prostitution and drugs – it isn’t just adolescent, it’s insane. The future will be littered with broken people. There is no free speech in Europe.
It appears the H G Wells was prescient in his depiction of a future earth comprised of Eloi and Morlocks when you see what the progressives are attempting to create.
The Europeans have lost their minds but this is not new. 2 world wars started there so why should we expect that their madness is gone. Pretty soon there will be no point to NATO because there will be nothing left to defend.
The only sanity left on that continent is some of the Eastern Nations who had real experience under communism.
The only hopeful sign is that the Netherlands is small and may not totally infect the rest of the continent with their brain death.
Their relevance diminishes by the day.
I’m waiting for billboards with the new preferred commercial speech: Chateaubribug, and Dead Calm Wind Turbines.
All this is moot, even by their own assumptions. China and India are still driving world carbon levels dramatically higher, despite Western progress on carbon emissions.
If anybody wants a report card on China’s “climate progress,” here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff0AYRWrnGY
I would also add that China is a ruthless strategic rival of the West (the Germans often forget that, thanks to Klaus Schwab). China’s energy advantage will become our strategic liability.
Diogenes, it is true that China commissioned 78 GW of new coal power in 2025—the highest in a decade. However, the same year, they added 543 GW of new power capacity, mostly from solar and wind, which was more than twice the size of Germany’s entire grid. But they are adding renewables at a much faster pace.
China’s renewable capacity is nearly 50%, the actual generated electricity from those sources is only about 35% because solar and wind are intermittent. China recognizes that renewables are not ever going to be a fully dependable source, that is why the are investing in more nuclear power plants than any other nation. they are hedging against a future where fossil fuels are going to be more expensive and limited. We are not doing any of that. That is why the Iran blockade is not doing as much harm as we thing it is because they have the ability to be more flexible with their energy sources.
“They [China] are investing in more nuclear power plants than any other nation… We are not doing any of that.”
And why are we not investing in more nuclear, X? The Left hates nuclear. As for renewables, they will never come close to meeting anybody’s energy needs, and the ecological impact would be enormous if we tried. And as for China’s renewable propaganda, do you really believe anything they say? They fudge all their numbers.
The ‘Left hates nuclear’ trope is about 15 years out of date. Current polls show that 77% of Americans—including a majority of Democrats—back nuclear energy.
The U.S. isn’t ‘doing nothing’; we’re literally doing things that have never been done before, like restarting the Three Mile Island and Palisades reactors to fuel the AI boom.
We may not be building at China’s assembly-line speed we will never get to that point, but the U.S. still generates more nuclear power than any other country on Earth. If you’re going to bash the ‘Left’ or the you might want to check the 2026 data first.
FYI China is far outpacing us when it comes to renewables and they are getting close to making it 50% of their entire energy output. That’s a big thing and it saves them money in the long run.
“making it 50% of their entire energy output”
X, 50% is an absurd number. That’s propaganda designed to whitewash China and sell Chinese renewables to Western suckers.
Also, I don’t know what your source is, but I don’t believe the left is embracing nuclear at all. I think a few thought leaders are, like Sabine Hossenfelder and Bill Gates, but Sabine has gotten a lot of flak for that, and Bill backed off after he got slammed by the left.
I’m sorry, but your comments don’t comport with my lived experience. I doubt your sources are reliable, especially the Chinese ones. That’s the problem with relying on AI. Garbage in, garbage out.
GSX, George Svalez X, only looks for what sounds good for his position, not what is true. In this case 50% conflates capacity vs generation. Coal alone accounts for 60% of their electricity and they are the worst polluter on the planet.
“Garbage in, garbage out.”
And GSX is the garbage dump.
Care to back that up?
What do you want backed up?
Okay, Okay, I’ll take one. “Garbage in, garbage out.” And GSX is the garbage dump. You prove it daily on the blog.
Have been able to confirm it? Or are you just dismissing it because it’s China. They have advanced well beyond our capabilities regarding infrastructure.
X says, “We are not doing any of that.”
“Data from the end of 2025, the latest available, shows that 90% of new energy capacity added in the U.S. last year came from clean sources.” https://www.wri.org/insights/clean-energy-progress-united-states
Lin,
While you’re right about the 90% figure for new installations, the same report you linked shows that the U.S. energy transition actually hit several major speed bumps in 2025.
For example, coal generation increased by 13% because of new federal mandates to keep dying plants alive, and EV sales actually dropped for the first time in years.
Even the big tech companies pushing ‘clean energy’ are quietly funding massive new natural gas plants to keep their AI data centers running because renewables alone aren’t meeting the demand.
Adding solar panels is great, but when coal use goes up and manufacturing investments drop by 17%, it’s hard to argue that the transition is going as smoothly as the headline suggests.
That was for last year. Right now Trump is actively trying to terminate renewable energy projects including offshore wind. Because…it’s bad. China is benefitting from an expansion. We are in serious need of more energy because of data centers and Trump is strongly suggesting fossil fuels which will drive up the cost of electrify for everyone. This is already true in communities where data centers have been built and no renewables are used to support it.
China owes the world’s 195 countries $94 trillion for damages from its origination of “China Flu, 2019.” This very well may be a wholly moot and pointless discussion.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
The single most comprehensive estimate for the total global cost of COVID-19 is $94 trillion. This figure represents the highest-end “total burden” estimate found in modern economic modeling. It is considered rational because it captures the intangible human toll that standard GDP figures often ignore.
More senseless virtue signaling amounting to nothing.
Prof. Turley, are you now ready to argue for removing advertising controls over public vices in the US?
You realize there are unethical shysters waiting in the wings to hawk addictive products that communities have decided they are better off without, such as smoking, vaping, online gambling, internet prostitution? Do you want to be associated with the cult of rabid individualism that has made a mockery of public standards?
Can’t you see that some responsibilities — some deference to the larger group’s sensibilities — attach to public speech? Can’t you see that groups unable to uphold consensus values are doomed to anarchy, decline and dissolution? Free speech is all about reasonable limits that keep the public square healthy, productive and able to problem-solve in realtime, not the abandonment of individual responsibilities toward that end.
The path to depravity and decay is littered with freedoms absent responsibilities.
If course it’s now a fact that banning safer vaping has led to increased more unhealthy cigarette smoking. But, as always, it’s the shortsighted puritanical elitist view that counts
Pbinca, Turley doesn’t ‘see’ it because his position has always been that of a free speech absolutist even though he never claims to be one. His views and position give away his true view, he’s a free speech absolutist without directly saying he is one.
The “reasonable limits” you (and I) would like to see have been, for centuries, provided by the individual’s sense of decency and respect for others’ views. The Left has jettisoned decency and respect so, it would seem, the only recourse for us is the law or to violent self-help, and they are trying every day to take away the law option.
If the vegan/climate alarmists believe their position is best, why are they afraid of defending it publicly? You don’t win the argument by not letting the other person speak at all. Why not let people decide for themselves? Should vegans be banned from promoting their lifestyle or even forced to eat meat? No. Just like omnivores should not forbidden from eating meat. Likewise, you want an electric car, fine, but I prefer internal combustion cars. My choice doesn’t affect yours and vice versa. With China burning millions of tons a coal, not advertising McDonalds will have zero impact on anything except those who work at McDonald’s.
OT but sorta related given the ban on meat advertising in Amsterdam.
I recently began to wonder why American politicians have not changed policy to encourage greater beef production to lower prices to consumers. It occurred to me they may actually WANT beef prices to remain high for ideological reasons.
The high prices “nudge” (using Cass Sunstein’s word) consumers – especially the poor, lower and middle class – away from beef consumption into substitutes like poultry and pork. The politicians have not used direct taxes to change consumer behavior away from beef like they did with tobacco and alcohol, but it seems to me high beef prices may be a side effect of other policies they do favor.
For example, the politicians have chosen to subsidize uneconomic wind and solar farms. Meanwhile, we’ve lost over 10 million acres of pastureland. Are they linked? The US population has increased by well over 100 million people in the past half century, which requires new residential construction to accommodate all of the lawful and illegal immigrants the politicians have intentionally imported. Have we lost pastureland previously used to grow hay and graze cattle so immigrants can have a place to live and rich Democrat donors can build solar and wind farms? Now there is a big rush to build AI data centers, which also requires land.
A chicken has a very short life cycle. It takes about 8-10 weeks from the time a chicken is hatched until it is on the grocery shelf. However, raising a beef cow takes one to two years from the time the calf is born until it reaches slaughter age. It requires far more inputs to put on a pound of beef than chicken or even pork does, and more land use. So I can see why the anti-human ideological kooks would want policy that discourages beef consumption.
The beef on hoof inventory is near its lowest point in the past 60 years resulting in sky high beef prices. It looks increasingly to me like a deliberate policy choice to discourage beef consumption. One of Thomas Sowell’s greatest insights on me was that there are no solutions in politics, only tradeoffs. High beef prices seems like a tradeoff from other policy choices the elites favor – because they have to means to pay for rib eye steaks whenever they want them.
Or, maybe people have lowered their red meat consumption based on health considerations. Once you pull back from eating beef regularly, you don’t care how much it costs anymore.
I am convinced the Nazis loved their country more than the LEFT.
The Left are on a mission to Destroy Western Culture.
While the Chinese push to enjoy the advantages of meat….healthier bodies….The LEFT goes full FASCISTS to end Meat, Whites and Men!
What the F are you babbling about?
👍🏻
Turley often argues that “private censorship” by social media companies or universities is as dangerous as government censorship, despite the First Amendment historically applying only to state action.
Some of us point out that he frames private editorial choices as “anti-free speech” while simultaneously advocating for the government to withhold funding from these same private institutions to force certain speech standards. That’s how the professor prefers to manage ‘free speech’, through government threats to withhold funding. Clearly a hypocritical position.
In his book Turley argues that the Founders intended an “unfettered” right to speech, but historians point to early American history when anti-blasphemy laws were commonly accepted and enforced is evidence that even the most revolutionary figures did not envision the near-total deregulation Turley claims should be the norm. His ‘absolutist’ views are clearly in contradiction even with the founders views.
Turley does not argue that … He never ever argued that. If you have proof, then ID the post and date George. You liar.
He argues that in his book. On page 335 of his book and page 23.
“The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interests with the government’s traditional wish to control speech has put us on an almost irresistible path toward censorship.”
This is when he demands government defund organizations that he opposes. Effectively censoring by denying funds to those he disagrees with. Crazy huh?
X, you regularly tell people who post here that no one is blocking the speech; that they (the speakers) have other venues/forums/avenues/opportunities.
Yet you accuse Prof. Turley of “Effectively censoring by denying funds to those he disagrees with,” –which, in and of itself, is an untrue statement, –but for the sake of argument/debate, let’s turn tables here.
“So what?” you like to tell others.
So I say, arguendo, “So what?”
Surely, X, “academic, media, and corporate interests” have other means for funding, n’est ce pas?
AND you seem to fail, or intentionally leave out, that FUNDING FOR is a completely different issue that “CENSORSHIP OF” disfavored speech, n’est ce pas?
> Turley often argues that “private censorship” by social media companies or universities is as dangerous as government censorship, despite the First Amendment historically applying only to state action.
Free Speech is a broad concept. The 1st Amendment is one implementation of it, specifically for the government. The principle of free speech is much broader than just the 1st Amendment.
> advocating for the government to withhold funding from these same private institutions to force certain speech standards.
Imagine a scenario where the police could not get a warrant, and so hired Pinkertons to ransack the domicile instead. This did happen and it was ruled unconstitutional. As a principle, the government cannot hire a private company to do what it is not allowed to do itself. If the government cannot hire a private company to violate the fourth amendment, why do you believe it’s fine for the government to hire a private company to violate the first amendment?
When a private social media company moderates content, it is not “violating” the user’s First Amendment rights—it is exercising its own First Amendment right to editorial discretion. The government asking a company to enforce its own existing terms of service is legally distinct from the government ordering a private investigator to break into a house.
The ‘Pinkerton’ analogy doesn’t hold up legally because it confuses state force with voluntary subsidies. In the Fourth Amendment example, a citizen is a victim of a search they did not consent to. In the case of government funding, a private institution voluntarily accepts tax money and the conditions that come with it.Under the Supreme Court’s ‘Spending Clause’ doctrine, the government is allowed to set conditions for how its money is used. If a university takes federal funds, the government can require it to uphold certain standards—such as viewpoint neutrality—as a condition of that gift. This isn’t ‘hiring a surrogate’ to violate a right; it’s a property owner (the taxpayer) deciding not to subsidize institutions that act against public policy. Crucially, private companies have their own First Amendment right to moderate content; the government ‘encouraging’ them to do so only becomes unconstitutional if it rises to the level of coercion or threats, which is a much higher legal bar than simply withholding a optional grant.
The idiocy of the Left. No ads for the national airline and no pictures of a juicy steak. But bring on the weed and prostitutes.
It’s public property vs. private property and what they can do with it. If the local municipality chooses not to advertise on public property things that are contrary to their public policy it’s their right.
That does not mean private companies cannot advertise for meat consumption and fossil fuels on their own purchased private advertising space. Free speech remains intact despite Turley’s claims.
KLM is government owned airline in the Netherlands. Citizens in the respective states voted for the banning of the ads. Do some honest research George.
Actually, ‘honest research’ shows that KLM is a privately-managed multinational group, not a government-owned entity. The Dutch government only holds a 9.1% minority stake, which is significantly less than the 43% held by private public investors. Furthermore, there was no citizen vote on this ban; it was a decision made by the Amsterdam City Council in a 27-17 vote.
Reframing a municipal legislative decision as a direct democratic mandate or state-ownership mandate misrepresents how Dutch governance and corporate structures actually work.
As “X” says. . . KLM is a privately managed multinational group, not a government-owned entity.
Might I suggest it is you who needs to do more research, not just to react to the opinions of others.
Interesting data but not surprising. Makes one wonder at what rate of taxation do citizens become chattel. I recall a guide on a bicycle tour of one of the Scandinavian cities remarking that he pays about 1/2 his income in taxes. I doubt he grossed anywhere near 100k €. He did add that they have a very good health care system. He looked pretty fit to me as anyone who uses a bicycle as his primary means of transport would. All this angst about existential threats to the climate, democracy, etc is to justify authoritarianism is getting pretty tiresome.
Let the NL do what they want. Its not of your fing business. And beside, you people are too stupid to comprehend NL political, societal or culture values.
Dad, the doc said you would resume becoming enraged at online posts if you stayed in the basement and did not take the meds. Only last year, when you were doing the work for the Mamdani campaign in return for free grocery store credits, you were raging that the EU was run by incompetents unwilling to recognize the greatness of Greta. Now look at this post of yours. You are sinking, Dad.
You need help. . .mental health, which appears to consume your entire mentality. Maybe if you read Turkey’s “Age of Rage” book you’d have other opinions. And the use of “you people” (without going further in their identification) is a sign (in your opinion) that everyone (excluding you) is stupid.
The self-defeatist hings that narcissists do never cease to amaze. They must not have seen the most recent Swedish study revealing a highly significant link that meat ingestion is highly protective at preventing progression of Alzheimer’s in those with the Alzheimer’s gene APOE4. Or maybe they missed the plight of Germany’s energy price escalation after going “green”. Has anyone ever wondered why there is not one (1) example of a city in any part of the world that is that is totally reliant on wind/solar energy and consequently fossil fuel free?
You got any verifiable facts for that screed?
Here is one study. . .and there are lots more. . .if you care to find and read them vs lambasting the posts of others.
https://news.ki.se/high-meat-consumption-linked-to-lower-dementia-risk-in-genetic-risk-group
While Turley frames Amsterdam’s policy as a ‘manifestly negative’ move against free speech, he omits the critical fact that this is not a ban on speech, but a management of public property.
Amsterdam has not ‘censored’ meat or fossil fuels; it has simply decided that its own taxpayer-funded infrastructure—its bus stops and metro stations—will no longer be used as a megaphone for industries that conflict with the city’s legal commitment to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
Private retailers can still promote meat on their own storefronts, and citizens can see these ads in any private media. The ‘true context’ isn’t an ‘insatiable appetite’ for regulation, but a city exercising its right as a property owner to ensure its assets aren’t being used to undermine its own massive investments in public health and climate policy.
Rather than a slippery slope, this is a calculated decision to stop using public space to ‘normalize’ high-carbon consumption while simultaneously asking the public to move toward a more sustainable future.
Fun fact, in Amsterdam, meat advertisements accounted for only an estimated 0.1% of outdoor ad spend.
Turley is making it look like it’s a bigger deal than it it really is. Pardon the pun, but it’s a nothing burger.
Critical fact? Just because you frame so, doesn’t make it a fact, critical or otherwise. You dumbass. Pardon my pun.
You didn’t show how it’s wrong or not a fact. Turley left out the fact that this “censorship” only applies to public government spaces. Not private which pretty much defeats the idea that this is some sort of harsh anti-free speech move.
The professor has a nasty habit of leaving out pertinent facts that skew his narrative into a false one. Context matters and this is not about censoring certain views. It’s about a city’s right to manage public property. He “forgot” to mention that private companies or organizations can still advertise for all the beef and fossil fuels they want. You know the free speech he keeps saying is in “danger” of being trampled on.
Why should I prove you wrong X, you posted the lies. Then support your lies with facts and sources.
What are the lies? Nothing I have said is factually incorrect. You keep saying I’m lying. It’s incumbent on you to prove I am lying. Obviously you cannot because I am not lying.
X
/Users/A/Desktop/X.png
Who appointed YOU to correct Turley every single morning? Was it your multiple personality disorder? Your defective ego functioning? Your unhappiness with your life? Your jealousy? Your lack of money to start your own blog? Your fear that your own blog would fail…..Bigly?
STFU a hole.
Your childish response to Anonymous is the sign of a petulant child who cries loudly until they get their parent’s iPhone. The “STFU up” is what teenagers say when they have nothing to say but felt the need to be rage against those with whom they have discussions. Then again, you epitomize the “age of rage” Turley describes.
Correct? No, just offering a different point of view to his. He’s fair game and Turley is known for leaving out particular facts and context when writing his columns. He does like to skew narratives to fit his biases and false claims.
You sound more jealous than anything else because you cannot refute what I point out. Why would I need a blog when Turley, a bigly free speech supporter, encourages the free exchange of ideas, perspectives, views, and contrary criticism. He is fair game and that is part of the kind of free speech Turley wholly supports.
We already have a resident (Anonymous) who uses epithets as a response to others. When you use a term “dumbass”, it’s easily recognizable if you look in the mirror.
FYI, consider taxes in EU countries in the table below. It shows that Denmark (2nd from top) has already taxed out all the big money earners, leaving only the rule-makers in power. Now they have rules on advertising meat, fossil fuels, and gas cars. Expect more rules.
Estimated Take-Home Pay/Taxation for €100,000 Gross (2026 Models):
1 Belgium: Very high taxation, with net income often below €55,000–€60,000.
2 Denmark: One of the highest tax burdens, with top marginal rates exceeding 60% for very high earners.
3 France: High, with a top statutory rate of 55.4% and significant social charges.
4 Germany: Progressive, with a top rate of 42% (or 45% for very high earners) plus social security. A single earner (tax class 1) could pay roughly 35-42% in total tax/social security, resulting in roughly €58,000–€65,000 net.
5 Italy: Progressive, with a 43% top rate on income above €50,000, plus regional surcharges.
6 Ireland: Progressive, with 40% marginal rate, plus social charges (USC).
7 Netherlands: Top marginal rate of 49.5%.
8 Switzerland: Varies heavily by canton, but significantly lower than neighboring EU countries.
9 Bulgaria/Romania: Flat tax systems (10% PIT) offer the highest net retention in Europe.
Mamdani would love Denmark. Rules! Taxes! I wonder how many Danes now call Florida home.
What does that have to do with NL ad bans? BTW, wherever you stole those so called stats, its wrong.
Dad, picking fights from the basement already! Please take a shower and look for a job today. The kids are hungry. Fighting social wars from the basement did not work out for Cole Allen and he did not have kids to worry about.
Great post. The “Anonymous” you reference is (to me) to have failed the free speech class in grade school, as well as his parents not teaching him (or her) about respects of others, even when you disagree. His posts typically lambast the posts of others, similar to a child who cries after the parents take the child’s toys. If I were Turley, I’d change the “Anonymous” name by adding an extension such as I, II, etc., to clearly differentiate the member of this blog.
Disinformation Governance Board … welcome to Amsterdam!
Disinformation? Its about banning ads.
You are sinking, Dad. The low protein diet is taking a toll on you. And telling the kids the kwashiorkor look is ‘fashionable’ in the EU is not cutting it.
Please come up from the basement and look for a job!
Your posts are a welcome response against those who continually want to trash the opinions of others.
Sad state.
Auditioning for the Babylon Bee? 🐝
Oh…you mean this isn’t satire, Professor? 😉