Afraid to Speak Freely
"I've seen behind the curtain. What I witnessed wasn't equality — it was control, silencing, and bullying."
The foundational 2025 study from Freedom in the Arts. 481 UK artists and arts professionals describe a sector whose stated values of free expression do not survive contact with its practice — and a measurable worsening since the 2020 Arts Professional baseline.
Download the full reportA troubling set of double standards.
Freedom of speech and artistic expression are widely considered cornerstone values of the arts and our democratic society. The ability to challenge orthodoxies, explore controversial ideas and perfect ground-breaking expertise has historically fuelled artistic innovation. In principle, the UK's arts and cultural sector espouses these liberal ideals. Yet, in reality, a troubling set of double standards exists.
In 2020, less than a fifth of 512 respondents to an Arts Professional (AP) Pulse survey said that they did not feel free to speak publicly on heated social and political debates of the day. New research conducted by Freedom in the Arts (FITA) demonstrates that in the 5 years since the AP survey, freedom of expression in the arts sector is in an even more perilous state. Today the majority of 481 respondents asked whether they speak freely, claimed they never or rarely did.
Artists and art professionals talked about a pervasive culture of ideological conformity to a relatively small set of 'hot' political and social debates. Nuance and dissent about topics identified as 'taboo' is met with professional and social reprisals, cancellations and bullying and harassment, the fear of which generates widespread self-censorship.
This report presents that research and paints a damning picture of what life is like for artists and arts professionals working and practising in the UK in today's arts sector.
The mechanism
How the double standard operates.
An ideological orthodoxy designates certain topics dangerous; crossing those topics produces reprisals; the reprisals produce fear and self-censorship; resistance, where it shows up, breaks the cycle.
-
i.
Ideological orthodoxy.
A "correct opinion" has settled across large parts of the sector, accompanied by a remarkable consensus among respondents that disagreeing with it openly is professionally hazardous. The orthodoxy is rarely written down and almost never argued for — it is enforced through reputational risk, peer disapproval and the quiet sense that some positions are no longer sayable.
"If they find out you've got the wrong opinion, they don't want to know about your art."
-
ii.
Dangerous topics.
A small number of subjects — gender-critical thought, Israel and Palestine, race and EDI orthodoxy, Brexit and right-of-centre opinion — have become topics it is "ill-advised to express" any heterodox view on. Respondents describe knowing the list without ever being told, and trimming what they say in public, in meetings, and in the work itself accordingly.
"Support for Brexit = instant leprosy in my field."
-
iii.
Reprisals.
An array of personal, professional and institutional consequences — bullying, ostracism, dropped commissions, withdrawn funding, settlement agreements, the "pile-on" — visited on those who cross the line. The most-cited source of pressure has shifted: in 2020, fewer than a third of respondents named their own colleagues; by 2025, almost three-quarters did. The reprisal is now coming from inside the corridor.
"It was like a mob went after me — people I considered friends joined in."
-
iv.
Fear and self-censorship.
The mechanism the reprisals produce. Respondents describe "keeping their head down," "weighing up the risk," "walking on eggshells" — and changing what they make, programme or commission as a result. Self-censorship is not an outlier behaviour in this data; it is a structural feature of professional life, and it is producing a quieter, narrower body of work than the sector tells itself it makes.
"Knowing this, I keep my head down."
-
v.
Resistance.
A smaller, growing body of evidence that the dynamic can be turned. Where leaders, peers or legal redress have held the line, the predicted disaster has often failed to materialise — and where one person has held the line publicly, others have found the room to follow. Institutional spine, when it shows up, works.
"Just breaking the silence is part of the solution."
Conclusion
The arts champions artistic freedom in theory but does not permit real freedom of speech in practice.
Our research reveals an arts sector grappling with a conflict between its liberal ideals and its illiberal realities. Viewpoint intolerance, ideological orthodoxy, punishing reprisals, the corrosive effect of self-censorship — the themes are tightly interlinked. Where the dominance of a single worldview creates the expectation that any deviation will be met with backlash, those whose careers are played out in public take the hit hardest.
It is worth reflecting on why this matters. The freedom to imagine and express is the lifeblood of the arts. A sector creating under fear is one in which certain stories are never told and certain perspectives never shared — and the cost of that narrowing is paid by the publics the sector is publicly funded to serve. The role of institutional leaders is therefore critical. Boards, funders and arts organisations must restore impartiality, and visibly defend the right of employees and artists to hold and express lawful opinions — even contentious ones.