Protest, Platforms and the Politics of Performance: Who Decides What Belongs on Stage?

This year’s Glastonbury sparked a national conversation far beyond music, with performances by Bob Vylan and Kneecap now under police review and political scrutiny. Their sets included explicit political commentary, chants around the Israel-Palestine conflict, and criticism of political leaders - prompting questions about the role of artists, the responsibilities of broadcasters and festivals, and the place of government in shaping cultural spaces.

🔍 The Case for Responsibility and Oversight

Some argue that with freedom of expression comes responsibility - particularly when messages may be interpreted as inciting violence. When phrases like “Death to the IDF” or “start a riot” are broadcast to thousands, organisers and broadcasters face legitimate questions about where to draw the line. For critics, this isn't about silencing dissent, but about upholding public safety and ensuring platforms aren't used - intentionally or otherwise - to legitimise hate.

With events like Glastonbury carrying global reach, there’s pressure on institutions like the BBC to apply due diligence. Publicly funded organisations have accountability to a diverse audience, and it's argued that they must weigh the potential harm of broadcasting extreme or emotionally charged content without sufficient context.

🎙 The Case for Artistic Freedom and Cultural Space

On the other hand, protest has always had a place in art. Many see performances like these as part of a long tradition of artists using the stage to confront uncomfortable truths, provoke thought, and speak to lived experiences. To investigate or suppress those performances risks criminalising artistic expression and setting dangerous precedents for creative freedom.

Supporters of the artists argue that context matters: punk, satire, character performance and cultural commentary are often provocative by nature. Calls for censorship can flatten the complexity of these performances and disproportionately target marginalised or politically critical voices.

There is also concern around selective outrage - why are some forms of political speech tolerated while others face backlash? And at what point does state involvement in curating cultural content become interference?

🤝 A Shared Challenge

Ultimately, this is a complex issue with no easy answers. Festivals and broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure safe, inclusive spaces, but also to protect artistic expression. Governments, too, must tread carefully - upholding law and public order without encroaching on the creative freedoms that are vital to a healthy, democratic society.

These questions aren’t new, but they are urgent. As the lines between art, protest, and politics become increasingly blurred, institutions, audiences, and artists will need to navigate these tensions with nuance, empathy, and accountability.

🎗️ Amid all of this, it’s important to remember that the conversations sparked on stage reflect a backdrop of real human suffering. Whatever your views, humanitarian aid remains critical in Gaza and across conflict zones. If you’re able, consider donating to relief organisations delivering medical and essential support on the ground.

This is about more than what happens on stage - it’s about how we hold space for culture, conflict, and compassion at the same time.