The UK’s artistic and cultural institutions are increasingly governed by ideological orthodoxy and political closure, with dissenting voices facing harassment, ostracism, and career damage, according to a major new report published today by Freedom in the Arts (FITA). Drawing on 483 survey responses from across the arts sector, the report paints an unsettling picture of declining freedom of expression, pervasive self-censorship, and a professional culture in which certain viewpoints are now “ill-advised to express”.
The survey, conducted in autumn 2024, gathered responses from artists, performers, writers, producers, administrators and others across the four UK nations. In total, 84% of respondents reported that they “never, rarely or only sometimes” feel free to speak publicly about their opinions. A further 78% agreed with the statement that “people working in the arts wouldn’t dare own up to right-of-centre political opinions”. The findings echo those of Arts Professional’s 2020 Pulse Survey, but suggest a marked deterioration in the climate for dissent.
As one participant put it, “the arts sector is intolerant of opinions and attitudes outside of the accepted consensus”. Many described arts institutions as “oppressively politicised” and lamented a narrowing of permissible discourse. The result, said FITA, is a sector in which viewpoint diversity is not merely undervalued but actively discouraged. “The finding of this research is that there is a widespread, deeply held perception that it is political closure and ideological orthodoxy that governs the arts,” the report states, “and questioning it, adding nuance or rejecting it risks grave career and personal consequences.”
Respondents offered a detailed catalogue of “dangerous topics” that they believe can no longer be safely discussed in professional settings. Foremost among them were women’s rights, gender ideology, and transgender politics. Roughly half of those who answered this question reported that expressing a gender-critical viewpoint was enough to risk being labelled transphobic and subject to “shunning” or “bullying”.
Issues around race, identity politics and critical race theory (CRT) were also identified as fraught. Around 13% said that expressing doubts about certain anti-racism narratives or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies could result in accusations of racism or exclusion from projects. One respondent listed “critical talk about CRT and race theories” as well as “any suggestion that there may be over-representation of certain demographics” as examples of views no one dared utter for fear of reprisals.
The Israel–Palestine conflict emerged as another sensitive fault line. Approximately a quarter of respondents said that voicing sympathy for Israel or condemning terror groups such as Hamas could lead to ostracism. One described being “bullied out of a collective” for doing so. Several noted a perceived double standard: “Vehement pro-Palestine statements are acceptable or even encouraged,” wrote one participant, “but anything pro-Israel is condemned.”
Other disallowed perspectives included scepticism about immigration levels, advocacy for stricter border controls, expressions of nationalism, or support for Brexit. The report notes that “even though Brexit was supported by 17.4 million Britons, within the arts it’s seen as anathema”.
In terms of consequences, the picture is bleak. Eighty per cent of respondents reported experiencing intimidation or ostracism for speaking out, with 61% saying that this had occurred in relation to their artistic or creative work. Comments referenced “trolling”, “shaming”, “boycotts”, and “exclusion”, particularly on social media platforms. Key terms such as “bullying” (44 mentions), “ostracised” (52), and “harassed” (47) appeared frequently across responses.
One interviewee, a well-known poet, said she had been largely excluded from the poetry scene since speaking out on women’s rights. “I’ve got one poetry client left… I just don’t get opportunities anymore, and I was an award-winning poet.” She described the culture as “a celebration of mediocrity,” where those who stay silent are rewarded and those who dissent are pushed out. Her poems were removed from a literary platform after it was claimed they were being shared by people “whose values do not align with the company”. It’s a stance that, taken seriously and applied consistently, would be commercially incoherent. No business could survive by vetting its audience’s beliefs. But this wasn’t about business. As the poet pointed out, it was a way to exclude her while masking the act behind the language of corporate values. An under-the-radar cancellation, in other words – one that punished both the artist and the community of readers who connected with her work.
The result, according to FITA, is widespread self-censorship. Artists reported “weigh[ing] up the risk” before engaging in public debate, avoiding certain topics entirely or retreating into silence. “People are scared to say what they really think,” said one. Another admitted to feeling “pressured to self-censor for fear of being ‘cancelled’ or bullied”. In FITA’s view, the chilling effect now exerts a powerful, unspoken discipline on artistic output, deterring exploration of contentious issues and weakening the sector’s intellectual pluralism.
Sadly, FITA’s findings closely mirror our own casework at the Free Speech Union (FSU).
Since formation in 2020, the FSU has handled nearly 3,900 cases, of which just under 3% involve members working in the creative and cultural industries. The most common issue in those cases has been the expression of gender-critical beliefs, accounting for 34% of all creative-sector referrals. These are followed by cases involving political views – particularly around Brexit, immigration and Islam – which make up 29%, with issues related to critical race theory in third place at 10%.
Among the cases are members who have lost funding, contracts or professional opportunities; been de-platformed or disinvited from events; had books or exhibitions cancelled; been subjected to disciplinary investigations; or faced doxxing, harassment and threats—all for expressing views that are entirely lawful.
“Artists should be free to experiment, take risks, and challenge the orthodoxies of their age,” said Dr Ben Jones, the FSU’s Director of Case Management. “Freedom in the Arts’ report captures powerfully just how far the sector has drifted from that ideal. What we’re seeing instead is a culture of institutional cowardice and ideological policing, where many artists feel compelled to self-censor – or leave the industry altogether. How many great pieces of art were never made because of this stifling climate?”
The FITA report is likely to reignite debate over whether the UK’s publicly funded arts sector is fulfilling its legal obligations under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. If the findings are accurate, they suggest that for many creative professionals, that right exists more in theory than in practice.
Click here to read the full report, Afraid to Speak Freely, by Freedom in the Arts.
