In a democratic society, the arts have long served as a vital space for exploration, dissent, and expression—where ideas can be tested, boundaries pushed, and cultural norms scrutinised. But a new report, Afraid to Speak Freely, produced by Freedom in the Arts (FITA), reveals that this role is under threat in the UK’s cultural and creative sectors. Based on survey responses from over 480 arts professionals, the report paints a troubling picture: that a significant number of artists, producers, and administrators feel unable to speak openly about their views, especially on socially and politically charged topics.
At the heart of the report lies a paradox. While freedom of expression is formally recognised as a core value—enshrined in law, policy, and mission statements—its everyday application in professional arts settings often falls short. Instead, a culture of ideological conformity has taken root, in which certain views are treated as settled fact, and deviation from them is not only discouraged but penalised. The result is a chilling effect that stifles discussion, narrows the scope of artistic exploration, and diminishes the pluralism that gives cultural life its richness and vitality.
The Mechanics of Silence
The report identifies several key mechanisms through which freedom of expression is being inhibited. One is the enforcement of ideological orthodoxy: a tacit (and sometimes explicit) pressure to align with dominant narratives on issues such as gender identity, race, colonial history, and social justice. While these issues are undeniably important, the report highlights that questioning prevailing frameworks—even from an informed, principled or artistically exploratory standpoint—can invite professional reprisals.
Respondents reported being uninvited from projects, losing work, or being subjected to online harassment for voicing heterodox views. Institutional caution compounds the problem, with organisations increasingly adopting a risk-averse posture that prioritises reputation management over intellectual openness. When combined with the threat of reputational damage and social ostracism, many respondents described feeling compelled to self-censor rather than risk speaking honestly or creatively.
The Cost of Conformity
What happens when a sector designed to embrace complexity instead rewards uniformity? The consequences, as outlined in the report, are not just personal but structural. Suppressing dissent weakens the sector’s credibility as a space for exploration and challenges its capacity to reflect the diversity of public thought. Affirming a censorious view may seem like a route to safety, but it comes at a cost: diminished trust, reduced innovation, and a loss of authenticity.
In the longer term, this harms not only individual practitioners, but also audiences—especially those who look to the arts as a site for truth-telling, contradiction, and creative conflict. When complex issues are reduced to binary positions, and when disagreement is treated as deviance, the arts risk becoming didactic rather than dialogic. The promise of art—to ask difficult questions, not just answer them—is weakened.
Towards a More Open Culture
This does not mean that freedom of expression must come at the expense of care or responsibility. On the contrary, the report suggests that a renewed commitment to freedom of thought, speech and expression could enhance, rather than diminish, the wellbeing of all involved. Rather than treating disagreement as a threat, the sector could recognise it as an opportunity—for learning, for listening, and for growth.
This requires institutions to move beyond surface-level inclusivity and towards an ethos of intellectual hospitality. It means supporting open, good-faith conversations where diverse perspectives can be shared without fear of cancellation or ridicule. It also means defending the principle that no single viewpoint should dominate the arts by moral fiat, however well-intentioned.
By fostering environments where artists feel free to explore and express—even when that involves uncomfortable or unpopular ideas—we safeguard not only individual freedoms, but the very function of the arts as a democratic and transformative space.
A Call for Courage and Care
Afraid to Speak Freely offers more than critique. It is a call to the sector to realign its values—not by abandoning care or equity, but by recognising that these are best upheld when expression is protected, not policed. Rebuilding a culture of openness in the arts won’t be easy. It will require courage, patience, and an unwavering commitment to both truth and compassion.
But the reward is worth it: a creative culture that values complexity, fosters trust, and reclaims the freedom to imagine otherwise.