Culture professionals ‘afraid to speak freely’

Is freedom of speech at risk in the UK's culture sector? Some culture professionals and artists do not feel free to speak publicly about their opinions, and there has been a significant increase in censorship and self-censorship in the sector since 2020, according to new report.

Afraid to Speak Freely was launched earlier this month at an event attended by a number of prominent figures in the art world, including the artist Grayson Perry and the arts journalist Kate Maltby, who is the deputy chair of Index on Censorship.

The report was produced by the campaign organisation Freedom in the Arts, founded in 2023 by former Arts Council England relationship manager Denise Fahmy and choreographer Rosie Kay, both of whom have faced difficulties in their work over expressing gender-critical views (defined as the belief that there are two sexes, and that sex is immutable, important and should not be conflated with gender identity).

The organisation aims to tackle what it describes as a growing climate of censorship and “ideological conformity” in the UK’s culture sector.

The report is based on a survey conducted last autumn using the same questions posed in a previous survey on freedom of expression by the trade publication Arts Professional in 2020.

The new survey, which garnered 483 responses, found that freedom of speech and expression appears to have declined over the past five years.

In 2020, less than a fifth (19.5%) of 512 respondents said they rarely or never felt free to speak publicly about their personal opinions on issues affecting the arts sector. This percentage had risen to 52.1% in 2025.

The report says these findings show that “freedom of expression in the arts sector is in an even more perilous state”.

The survey showed that 90% of respondents had felt “pressurised, reprimanded, intimidated, ostracised, coerced, trolled, harassed or bullied” for speaking out about issues affecting the arts sector, compared to 53% in 2020. Meanwhile 82% felt that those who expressed controversial opinions risked being professionally ostracised.

'Viewpoint intolerance'

The culture professionals who responded to the survey raised concerns about “viewpoint intolerance” and said there was a “pervasive culture of ideological conformity to a relatively small set of ‘hot’ political and social debates”, according to the report.

“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,” it says.

Lawful but unorthodox opinions are stifled and there is an “assumption that some debates are ‘settled’ because ‘everyone knows’ that there is a right and wrong side to the debate”, the report says.

One respondent said: “I feel the gap between personal life and work has totally disappeared. Now, if someone dislikes your opinions, they won’t just disagree – they will isolate you from the whole institution. Knowing this, I keep my head down.”

Among the viewpoints that the report says are not tolerated in the culture sector, gender critical beliefs are top of the list. Expressing such beliefs is “dangerous” and could be “career ending”, according to the report, with several respondents saying they had experienced bullying, harassment and professional damage as a result.

Expressing views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, such as “voicing sympathy for Israel or condemning groups like Hamas”, is also off limits, the report says, with several respondents saying they no longer felt able to tell people they were Jewish due to the climate in the sector.

A lower number of respondents “felt equally vehemently that ‘pro-Palestinian’ views were not tolerated in the sector”, says the report.  

Right-of-centre views, support for Brexit and issues around identity were among the other “dangerous topics” on which to voice an opinion in the UK culture sector, says the report.

This atmosphere has led to an aversion to risk-taking among cultural institutions, the report argues, with fear of controversy leading them to “implicitly or explicitly gag their employees”.

In one example, the report desribes how ceramicist Claudia Clare, whose work focuses on radical feminist themes, has had events cancelled at short notice by at least seven UK venues, “sometimes due to what she exhibits, but increasingly due to what she thinks”.

“Our board pre-emptively vetoes anything that might offend someone – it’s like walking on eggshells,” one respondent said.

Another said: “With so many artists competing for so little funding and so few opportunities, speaking out against the accepted doctrine of peers is equivalent to career suicide.”

There is a feeling that arts funding bodies exacerbate the issue, with respondents saying they steer clear of certain topics and do not feel able to criticise the actions of funders for fear of jeopardising future funding.

The report says there is a growing resistance to censorship in the sector, with new networks and groups forming to “restore openness to the arts”.

Respondents would like to see better leadership on the issue, the report says, calling on arts bosses to make clear that “thoughtful dissent is acceptable”.

The report concludes: “Our research reveals an arts sector grappling with a conflict between its liberal ideals and illiberal realities. The freedom to imagine and express is the lifeblood of the arts.

“Safeguarding that freedom, even when it leads to uncomfortable conversations, will ultimately enrich the arts and maintain its relevance as a space for all voices and stories.”

Sector criticism

There has been criticism of the report from some parts of the culture sector, however.

Paula Orrell, the national director of the Contemporary Visual Arts Network (CVAN), says she feels the concept of “free speech” is being used to “excuse harmful behaviours”.

Orrell says: “As someone who has spent years advocating for equity in the visual arts, I find it deeply troubling when the idea of 'speaking freely' is used to dismiss responsibility or excuse harmful behaviours.

“At CVAN, through our Fair and Equitable campaign, we’ve championed the principle that freedom of expression must go hand in hand with care, accountability, and respect.

“Without that balance, the concept of free speech can quickly become toxic—undermining trust, silencing others, and reinforcing harmful power dynamics. If we want a truly inclusive and dynamic sector, we must build cultures where artists and arts workers feel safe to speak—and be heard—not shouted over.

“CVAN believes in and protects marginalised people, especially those from protected characteristics and intersectional lived experiences. We believe in the power dynamic of artists and an industry that wants to change society for the better, not backwards, regressive ideas.”

Another culture professional told Museums Journal that the report appeared biased and agenda-driven, omitting a number of serious instances of recent censorship in the UK sector, such as Palestinian artists being dropped from programming, the removal of art critical of Israel from display in galleries, and growing hostility to, and protests against, trans representation in cultural venues.

There is disagreement and uncertainty in the sector about where the limits on free speech lie.

This week, a group of Jewish creatives, Jewish Artists UK, called on cultural institutions to tackle what it described as the censorship of art critical of the Israeli government under the “false guise” of protecting against antisemitism.

The group has produced a guide that outlines the distinction between antisemitism and “political speech that must be protected from censorship”, and has called on art institutions to make “make better, braver decisions”.

A number of initiatives are taking place in the UK culture sector this year addressing the issue of free speech. Women Create International, an event platforming “cancelled and at risk female and feminist artists”, will be held in London on 30 and 31 May.

Curated by Claudia Clare, whose case study features in Afraid to Speak Freely, the event will feature “dissident” artists and campaigners including Maryam Namazie, spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, artist and feminist Caren Garfen, and Ibtissame Betty Lachgar, an activist and feminist from Morocco.

Urgent matter

While debate on the issue continues in the UK, freedom of speech is fast becoming an urgent matter for museums in the US. At the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) conference last week, museum professionals outlined the climate of censorship they are facing under the Trump administration.

The US president has fired cultural leaders for supporting diversity and inclusion initiatives, and recently installed vice president JD Vance on the Smithsonian Institution's board of regents in order to “remove improper ideology” from its 21 museums.

“The series of executive orders released by the White House have attempted to censor us and tell us what we can say and what history we can celebrate,” AAM president and CEO Marilyn Jackson told the conference. “These executive orders have also attempted to tell us who we can hire, who we can honour, and how we should behave in our communities.”

As the example of the US sector shows, free speech can evaporate remarkably quickly. It may present complex questions, but if the principle itself is left undefended, we may find that we don't know what we've got till it's gone.

Opinion | ‘Defining where the limits on free speech lie is complex and shifting’

Richard Sandell and Suzanne MacLeod are co-directors of the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries at the University of Leicester

Freedom of speech is not only important for arts and culture but for the flourishing of a democratic society. We don’t know anyone working in museums who opposes this.

Cultural organisations play a key role in stimulating and enriching public debate on wide ranging contemporary issues around which people inevitably hold a variety of viewpoints.

Staff and volunteers working in our cultural organisations have the right to hold and express their own beliefs but it is also the case that, in the workplace and in public, we each have responsibility to those around us – free speech should never mean anything goes.

In our current febrile political climate – where an increasing number of visitors to museums, galleries and heritage sites feel emboldened to publicly express hateful and harmful views (numerous organisations have shared their experiences of this with us) – it is more important than ever that cultural organisations feel confident to speak up and enact their values and commitments to advancing equity and inclusivity.

There always has – and always should be – limits on free speech, even if defining where those limits lie is complex and shifting.