The Slippery Slope Argument
Perhaps the most striking part of West’s motion is its broader warning to the entertainment industry. His lawyers argue that if An’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed, it will expose directors, actors, and artists to liability every time provocative art involves depictions of violence or sexuality.
“To permit such claims to proceed would mean that every actor, director, and artist involved in provocative film, theater, or music video productions — whether depicting violence, sexuality, or both — could face retroactive criminalization,” the filing warns.
In other words, West is attempting to transform his defense into a test case for free expression in performance art — raising constitutional questions that may extend far beyond his personal legal troubles.
Plaintiff’s Response: “This Was Not Art”
Jenn An’s attorney, Jesse Weinstein, has dismissed West’s free-speech framing outright. In a sharply worded statement, Weinstein emphasized that what happened on set was not part of the script and not a performance An consented to.
“While Ye is certainly entitled to defend himself in this suit, we refuse to adopt his idea that sexually assaulting Ms. An was somehow justified as ‘art,’” Weinstein said. “This was an unscripted moment that he took it upon himself to create, much to the dismay and shock of nearly everyone around him.”
Weinstein’s framing highlights a tension that courts must often grapple with: the line between consent to artistic performance and exploitation disguised as art.
