Superstruct Entertainment has launched an Artistic Code which it describes as a “demonstration” of the company’s “longstanding support for artistic freedom and the creative independence of its festivals”.
The code will be used by the more than 80 festivals that are part of the Superstruct group, which includes Awakenings, Boardmasters, Field Day, Flow Festival, Kendal Calling, Mighty Hoopla, Sonar, Sziget, Truck Festival, Victorious and Y Not.
It’s based - Superstruct adds - on the company’s belief that “festivals should be places where artists can challenge, provoke and express different points of view”. And to that end the code “protects that space for expression while giving artists and festival teams a shared approach from booking through to show day”.
Launching the code, Superstruct COO Rebecca Kane Burton says, “Artistic freedom sits at the heart of our festivals. They are places for artists to express themselves, challenge ideas and bring different points of view to audiences”.
“We believe strongly in backing that freedom”, she goes on, adding, “the Artistic Code makes our position clear and gives artists and our festival teams shared principles to work from, with creative independence at the heart of them”.
The festivals sector has become increasingly political in recent years, with regular calls for festivals to boycott artists and artists to boycott festivals. And that has prompted much debate, albeit sometimes behind the scenes, on how this impacts on both the freedom of expression and mental health of artists.
There have been two main kinds of political controversies at festivals in recent years.
Firstly, there have been calls for festivals to refuse to book artists who express contentious political opinions, either on stage or through social media.
High profile cases include artists who use their festival platforms to criticise Israel and express support for Palestine, like Bob Vylan and Kneecap. And then there’s Kanye West, his history of antisemitic ranting, and whether or not we think his subsequent apology is sincere.
Secondly, there have been various campaigns calling on artists to boycott specific festivals based on the conduct and/or policies of their sponsors or owners.
These campaigns can result in artists receiving online abuse from some of the people supporting a boycott, who often say that an artist playing a targeted event basically is an implicit endorsement of the offending sponsor or owner, and excuses or enables their bad conduct.
All of which can put artists under a lot of stress. Especially if boycotting events will create financial issues or negatively impact on touring and release plans, making joining the boycott challenging - even if the artist ultimately agrees with the politics of the campaigners.
And some artists have admitted privately that they have been bullied and put under immense pressure by other artists to participate in certain boycotts.
Superstruct has had a lot of experience of dealing with “festival boycotts” of this kind ever since the company was acquired by private equity firm KKR in 2024, largely driven by people who are unhappy about KKR's investments in Israel in the context of the ongoing conflict in Palestine.
Because each of the festivals owned by Superstruct has its own strong brand and community, it’s generally the festival teams who have to respond to any boycott campaigns.
Those festivals have often chosen to distance themselves from KKR, while sometimes outright criticising their ultimate owner’s “unethical investments” and also expressing support of the Palestinian course. And the good news for those festivals is that both KKR and Superstruct’s management seem to be relaxed about individual events within the Superstruct group taking that approach.
The new Artistic Code deals more with the first group of controversies - calls for artists to be pulled from festival line-ups or blacklisted because of political views they have expressed either on or off stage.
Festivals are sometimes forced to comment on public criticism of certain bookings and - when that happens in the future - Superstruct and the festivals it owns will be able to simply point to the code.
At a top level it states that, “artists perform at our events and may express views, take political positions or make statements that are nothing to do with us, that we may not agree with, or that prompt public debate or scrutiny”. And, it insists, “that is their right”.
It goes on, “we do not censor or editorially control performances to ensure alignment with our group values or commercial interests", and "this includes cases where artists express social or political commentary as part of their performance or as part of their wider public persona”.
Of course, Superstruct and its festivals reserve the right to publicly disagree with what is said on their stages from time to time. The code adds, “We celebrate diverse creative expression. However, if an artist’s public statements or behaviour diverges from our core values, we reserve the right to clarify our organisation’s independent position”.
Those basics are all relatively straightforward, but then there are some complexities. Because, after all, the right to free speech is always constrained to a point, and that’s where things can get complicated.
The code says “artistic freedom has limits” and for Superstruct’s festivals there are “two absolute red lines”. First, “anything that puts the safety of our visitors or colleagues at risk, for example inciting dangerous crowd behaviour or targeting individuals or groups in a way that could lead to violence or is discriminatory”.
And “content or speech that is illegal in the country in which we are operating, for example expressing support for a proscribed organisation”.
Those red lines are also blurred lines, in that when people call for festivals to cancel artists because of their on-stage politics, they will often do so by claiming the artist’s on-stage statements were discriminatory or could lead to violence, or that they expressed support for a proscribed organisation.
Bob Vylan leading audiences in chants of “death, death to the IDF” - referring to the Israel Defense Forces - has been deemed antisemitic and an incitement to violence by the punk duo’s critics. And some of the calls for Kneecap to be canceled were based on allegations they had expressed support for proscribed terrorist organisations Hamas and Hezbollah.
And some people have also argued that when certain political opinions are expressed strongly on stage - for example with Kneecap and Bob Vylan’s forthright criticism of Israel - it can make some audience members feel uneasy and even unsafe, especially at festivals where you can expect a mixed and diverse crowd.
Both Kneecap and Bob Vylan would strongly deny any allegations that their on-stage commentary was antisemitic or threatening, let alone unlawful. And police investigations into Bob Vylan’s on-stage comments have never led to criminal charges.
Kneecap’s Mo Chara was charged over allegations he displayed a Hezbollah flag on stage but the criminal case against him collapsed. And while that case actually fell apart because of an administrative error made by prosecutors, Kneecap’s lawyers were very confident that the charges would have not held up had the case proceeded.
But what all those incidents show us is that - even with Supertruct’s Artistic Code - there may well be disputes over whether or not the festival firm’s ‘red lines’ should or should not apply when deciding whether or not to respect or restrict any one artist’s freedom of expression.
The code also has a section on flags because, you know, for some reason some people still think it’s a good idea to take flags to festivals so they can block other people’s view of the stage while waving their symbol of choice in the air.
But that’s freedom of expression too, right? However annoying it might be. And so, Superstruct’s code says its festivals allow flag waving and will only intervene “where a flag or symbol is illegal in the relevant market, or where a specific safety risk has been identified and agreed with permit authorities”.
“Artists may also use flags, symbols or political imagery as part of their performance”, the code adds, and “we treat this the same way”. There would, it continues, only be restrictions where there were safety risks or legal violations, because “we do not prohibit flags or symbols” simply because “they are controversial”.