Exploring the Legality of Artists' Use of Animals: Ethical Considerations and Legal Implications

A burgeoning field of literature considers animal law, the status of animals as legal objects, the protection of animals in laboratories, wild animals, etc. One aspect not often considered in the literature is the intersection between animal law and freedom of speech and, more specifically, the freedom of speech of artists. While these might seem disparate and mutually exclusive, they are not. A small but notable number of artists use, harm, or even kill animals in the creation of artwork. Elsewhere, this practice has been termed 'cruel art', defined as "the infliction of physical and/or emotional pain on non-human animals for the sole purpose of creating art that steps beyond the confines of the artist's right to freedom of speech". This article elaborates on the concept of 'cruel art' by considering animal law and the artist's freedom of expression. Interesting questions arise at this intersection: Can the law grant rights or otherwise protect the animal from being used, harmed, or killed for an artwork? Alternatively, can the law encroach on the artists' freedom of speech to protect the animals? There are good reasons to protect both parties-animals deserve protection from unnecessary suffering, and the artist should not be unduly censored from making art. This article seeks to engage with the following question: how can one consider an animal's legal standing in relation to an artist's freedom of speech? In order to answer this question, this article first briefly unpacks the concept of animal law and the need for legal reform in this arena. Secondly, this article considers freedom of speech as it relates to artists specifically. Third, it discusses the rising conflict between the legal protection of animals and the artist's freedom of expression. This article argues that certain artistic uses of animals should be legally prohibited, despite the fact that artists enjoy the right to freedom of artistic expression.