Our Methodology
The Observatory documents threats to freedom of artistic expression as a systemic phenomenon — not isolated incidents, but interacting pressures acting on the conditions under which creative work is conceived, financed, produced, and distributed.
The ecosystem under pressure
Threats to artistic freedom rarely arrive as explicit bans. They work through the transformation of ecosystems — the gradual reorientation of institutions, funding structures, broadcasting environments, and cultural climates that shape what can be imagined, what can be proposed, and what will be made.
The Observatory organises its documentation around four interconnected dimensions, each corresponding to a distinct layer of the creative environment. Incidents and patterns are classified according to the dimension — or combination of dimensions — they primarily affect.
Vision
The ideological and political context in which attacks on artistic freedom occur. This dimension concerns the framing — the declared objectives of political actors who seek to reshape culture: the delegitimisation of "mainstream" media, the promotion of "traditional values," the denunciation of cultural institutions as partisan. Vision does not directly suppress content; it provides the justification and the political cover for the patterns that follow.
The audiovisual ecosystem
The specific environment in which screen-based storytelling is produced and distributed: broadcasters (public and private), streaming platforms, production companies, national film funds, and the regulatory bodies that govern them. Attacks on this ecosystem target the institutions that commission and finance creative work — through ownership changes, regulatory pressure, funding reorientation, or the appointment of politically aligned leadership.
The cultural ecosystem
The broader cultural sector — libraries, museums, galleries, theatres, publishing houses, arts education — that does not directly produce audiovisual content but whose health is inseparable from the conditions in which audiovisual storytelling thrives. When cultural budgets are cut, when theatre directors are dismissed, when books are challenged, when arts education is defunded, the environment in which screen narratives are imagined and accepted by audiences is degraded. The Observatory documents attacks on this wider ecosystem precisely because their effects on audiovisual creation are real, even where no broadcaster or film fund is directly targeted.
The chilling effect
The most pervasive and least visible dimension. Without any direct intervention, the accumulated weight of the other pressures transforms the internal logic of creative decision-making: creators, producers, and commissioners begin to anticipate what will be acceptable, to avoid subjects that invite risk, to adjust stories before they are formally refused. The chilling effect cannot be documented through incidents alone — it requires a dedicated channel for professionals to describe what they did not make, and why.
The 14 patterns
Through extensive research across Europe, the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe identified 14 recurring patterns that may affect the conditions under which artistic freedom is exercised. These patterns may operate individually and in combination, often emerging in subtle ways before consolidating into more structural forms of restriction.
Generalised pressure on the media
Media delegitimisationContinuous and aggressive denunciation of media as "fake news" or "lying press." This pattern does not amount to direct censorship but may contribute to a generalised climate of suspicion toward verified information, which can lead editors and publishers toward self-restraint.
Creation of a climate of fear
Climate of fearUse of legal proceedings (SLAPP suits), online harassment campaigns, physical threats, accreditation restrictions, and advertising blacklists that may constrain creative and media professionals without resorting to formal censorship.
Purchase or acquisition of media by friendly interests
Media acquisitionProgressive consolidation of media groups by economically or politically influential actors, enabling indirect editorial influence without direct government intervention.
Use of state resources and regulatory bodies
Regulatory pressureUse of state tools — government advertising budgets, broadcast regulators, tax authorities, licensing procedures — that may economically disadvantage certain media outlets while favouring others.
Pressure on media with foreign ownership or NGO funding
Foreign agent framingUse of foreign funding or ownership as grounds to challenge the independence of media organisations, with reference to legal frameworks that classify such outlets as "foreign agents."
Dismissal of senior figures in cultural institutions
Institutional dismissalsReplacement of directors of museums, theatres, film funds, and public broadcasters — often without open competitive procedures — in ways that reorient public cultural funding and create structural changes that are difficult to reverse.
Direct censorship
Direct censorshipCancellation of performances, withdrawal of funding from specific projects, or outright bans on certain content or creative works.
Pressure on public service broadcasting
PSB pressureCampaigns to defund or abolish public service broadcasting, or influence over boards and editorial leadership that may result in public broadcasters being oriented toward particular political positions.
The chilling effect (induced self-censorship)
Chilling effectWithout any direct intervention, the progressive transformation of selection and funding conditions leads creators, producers, and broadcasters to anticipate what tends to be considered acceptable and to adjust their projects accordingly. The filtering of projects occurs upstream, before formal selection processes take place.
Normalisation of previously marginal positions
NormalisationProgressive shift in political discourse toward positions previously considered marginal, contributing to expanding the environment in which the patterns described in this framework tend to emerge.
Politicisation of cultural funding bodies
Funding politicisationReorientation of public funding criteria for creative work toward specific cultural or values-based criteria, operating through the appointment of particular figures to selection committees and funding juries in ways that may restrict creative diversity.
Creation of parallel cultural institutions
Parallel institutionsFunding and promotion of schools, training programmes, think tanks, and cultural centres that may contribute to forming creators oriented toward particular values, alongside or in place of existing independent cultural institutions.
Use of state advertising budgets as a pressure tool
Advertising pressureDiscretionary allocation of government advertising budgets that may create economic dependencies among media outlets, contributing to editorial self-censorship without any formal instruction being issued.
Disqualification of neutral arbiters
Epistemic erosionProgressive erosion of trust in institutions claiming neutrality or expertise — universities, polling institutes, fact-checkers, regulatory authorities, international organisations — contributing to an environment in which the authority of independent knowledge is challenged.
Who is affected
The Observatory documents threats affecting a broad range of creative and cultural professionals. Each submission is classified by the professional profile of the person or group primarily concerned.
Professionals who write scripts for film, television, streaming or web series. Since the Observatory collects firsthand accounts primarily from screenwriters, this is the default profile for personal testimony submissions. Every member of the FSE's affiliated guilds is a potential contributor.
Authors whose primary practice is the construction of narrative — playwrights, novelists, directors who author their films, comic writers, game narrative designers — but who are not screenwriters. The medium (stage, page, screen) defines the category, not the prestige or format of the work.
Creative professionals who hold copyright over original works but are not classified under narrative criteria — visual artists, composers, choreographers, photographers, illustrators, and others whose practice is defined by a creative medium other than storytelling. Their creative rights and professional conditions are equally at stake.
Actors, musicians, dancers, and other performers whose work is the embodiment and transmission of creative material — and whose ability to work is directly affected by the health of the ecosystem that commissions and presents their performances.
Media professionals whose work depends on editorial independence and whose freedom to report is inseparable from the conditions that govern cultural expression more broadly. The patterns documented here frequently target journalism and artistic expression simultaneously.
Researchers, historians, critics, and educators whose independent analysis of cultural production and political processes contributes to the epistemic foundation on which artistic freedom depends.
Directors of cultural institutions — theatres, museums, film funds, arts organisations — whose leadership positions make them direct targets when political actors seek to reorient cultural institutions toward specific values or agendas.
Two forms of data
Published reports, news articles, court decisions, and official statements documenting specific threats — ownership changes, dismissals, legal proceedings, funding cuts, cancelled productions. Submitted as a URL pointing to a publicly accessible source. Every submission is analysed by our automated system, which identifies applicable patterns and provides a confidence indication. All classifications are reviewed and validated by an FSE expert before publication.
First-person accounts from screenwriters describing something that happened to them — or something they chose not to write. A chilling effect is not an incident in the conventional sense: no institution directly refused or censored the work. It is the internalised logic of anticipatory self-censorship — a project abandoned, a script softened, a story that exists only in notes. Testimonies are submitted via a dedicated form. At the point of submission, the screenwriter explicitly chooses whether their anonymised summary may be published on the public Observatory (Say it loud) or kept strictly confidential for FSE's internal monitoring only (Keep it quiet).
Validation chain
Submission
A cultural professional submits evidence via one of two channels: a URL pointing to a published article or document (Submit evidence), or a first-person account of an incident or chilling effect (Share your experience). Personal contact details are optional and kept strictly separate from analytical data (GDPR).
Automated pre-analysis
The submission is immediately analysed by our automated system, which identifies which of the 14 patterns may apply, assigns the relevant ecosystem dimension, and provides a confidence indication. The automated system suggests — it does not determine.
Guild review
Pending submissions are routed to the relevant FSE member guild. Guilds have 5 days to add contextual knowledge — particularly for submissions involving national funding systems, broadcaster structures, or local political contexts. A reminder is sent at day 3. If no response is received by day 5, FSE resumes direct oversight of the submission.
Publication
Validated entries become part of the public Observatory dataset, feeding the interactive map and country reports. Each published entry includes the applicable patterns, ecosystem dimension, affected profiles, and — for chilling effect declarations — a summary that preserves analytical value while protecting the submitter's identity.
All submitted data is hosted on secure servers in Switzerland, operated by Infomaniak. Personal contact details are strictly separated from analytical data and never published. Chilling effect declarations submitted confidentially are summarised before publication: no identifying detail, project title, or employer is retained in the published record.
The political layer
The patterns documented in this Observatory do not emerge in a vacuum. Their distribution, intensity, and trajectory are directly shaped by the political environment in each country — by which parties hold power, which coalitions govern, which ministers control cultural budgets, and which political agendas are being advanced.
The Observatory's Political Radar maps, by country, the political context in which documented incidents occur: electoral results, coalition compositions, and the parliamentary standing of far-right and illiberal parties across Europe. Where such parties hold or share power, the Radar documents their position and trajectory — providing the political frame without which individual incidents risk being misread as isolated failures rather than coordinated patterns.
The Political Radar does not imply that all incidents are politically motivated, nor that every governing party poses equivalent risks to artistic freedom. Its purpose is analytical: to enable researchers, journalists, guilds, and policymakers to read documented patterns against the political conditions that make them possible, probable, or predictable.