Is artistic freedom being stifled by social media policing? A prominent poet is poised to take legal action against Arts Council England (ACE) after a magazine, which receives significant public funding, decided to pull her work from publication. The reason cited? Her 'social media presence', which the poet, Abigail Ottley, strongly believes is a veiled reference to her gender-critical views.
This situation has ignited a debate about censorship and the boundaries of public funding. A formal letter, dispatched to ACE by solicitors representing Ms. Ottley, asserts that the public body 'failed' to conduct a 'sufficient inquiry' into the decision made by the Aftershock Review. This magazine, launched by Max Wallis, has received substantial funding from ACE, totaling £32,368 in April 2025 and an additional £60,000 on January 28th. The solicitors are accusing the magazine of discrimination.
Ms. Ottley's poem was initially accepted by Aftershock Review in September. However, by October, she received an email stating the magazine would not proceed with publishing her work. The email, quoted in the legal correspondence, explained: "Following an internal review, and in light of concerns raised about your social media presence, we’ve decided not to proceed with publishing your work in this issue. As a trauma-informed and inclusive publication, the Aftershock Review has a duty of care to ensure our contributors and readers feel safe and respected. This decision reflects our commitment to those principles and is final."
But here's where it gets controversial... When Ms. Ottley sought clarification on what specific aspect of her social media activity led to this decision, she reportedly received no response. This lack of transparency prompted her to file a complaint with ACE in November, and she also sought support from the Freedom in the Arts (FITA) organization, which lodged its own complaint that same month.
On January 28th, ACE responded to Ms. Ottley's complaint, stating that their review did not identify a breach of their funding terms and conditions by Aftershock. According to the legal letter, an email from ACE indicated: "Although we are unable to provide specific details of our review, I hope it is helpful to mention that the grant-holder confirmed that your poem was not withdrawn due to your gender-critical beliefs."
And this is the part most people miss... FITA has highlighted that Ms. Ottley's social media activity largely consists of expressing and re-posting gender-critical views, including retweets of well-known figures like JK Rowling. Her legal team argues that without further clarification from the magazine about the specific social media content that caused the withdrawal, there are sufficient grounds to believe discrimination based on her gender-critical beliefs occurred.
The solicitors are now demanding that ACE disclose all documents pertaining to the dismissal of the complaint in January. To 'avoid litigation', they are urging ACE to reopen the complaint, conduct a 'lawful and fulsome investigation', and crucially, to review its decision to fund Aftershock. This is based on the principle that ACE grantees are obligated to comply with the Equality Act 2010 and must not discriminate.
A spokesperson for ACE has stated that they will not comment at this stage, citing that legal proceedings are ongoing. The Aftershock Review has not yet responded to requests for comment.
What are your thoughts on this? Should publicly funded organizations be allowed to withdraw content based on an artist's expressed beliefs, even if those beliefs are controversial? Let us know in the comments below – we’d love to hear your perspective!
