21 Comments

You are absolutely right. The real target is not you, but all of us who can see how you are being hauled into court, and then many choose silence. This is exactly the same as around the dangerous injections and the suppression of treatment. See how those who speak out are treated. BE AFRAID. BE SILENT. It is anti-human to have no right to rescue. It is the healthy human response to rescue when we see hurt, harm, injury, suffering. You and those with you are wonderful in both what you are doing and your thinking through what is really being done to all of us. As you know, many of us do not choose silence, but to speak out with and for you, for animal rights.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks so much Elsa. And spot on. It's so important that we not let this and other efforts to intimidate silence us!

Expand full comment

I'm so glad you're there, doing what you're doing. It's about love - and care. The big word for me is care. I care. I always have. It's the big motivation - if it's about rescuing the kittens from the farm next door - some otherwise get trampled to death and so on (I could find homes in the city nearby) - if it's about trying to reach people about various issues - if it's about teaching ethics and other stuff. Huge efforts to intimidate us, on every issue of importance - like just about everything to do the the scamdemic, and so much else. Anyway, glad you're there, and others with you. The whole slaughterhouse system is something that utterly needs to be stopped. People need to be willing to pay to have animals live proper animal lives. (I know people who do that, let a few sheep lead animal lives, and have them humanely slaughtered. It's not my way, but it's a million miles from the slaughterhouse system.)

Expand full comment
Sep 27, 2022Liked by Wayne Hsiung

Thank you, Wayne, for your leadership and sacrifices. You know you're making a difference when the opposition is moving mountains to silence you and strip you of your freedom. History will not look kindly on the people who terrorized animals in factory farms and their enablers in the government and the media.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks Donny! One of the many gifts of activism has been meeting awesome people. You're def included in that number. Looking forward to connecting again, hopefully soon, and hope you and Jim are well.

Expand full comment
Sep 28, 2022·edited Sep 28, 2022Liked by Wayne Hsiung

I am a law student, though not from the USA. The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."

Does the first amendment not apply to state laws?

Ag-gag laws are clearly in violation of the First Amendment.

Expand full comment
author

Indeed.

Expand full comment

Silence is dangerous and we have responsibility to never fear speaking for the defenceless!

Expand full comment

Good Luck with the trial. I’ll be watching and praying and hopefully things will change for animals for the better. X

Expand full comment

<3 <3 <3 Wayne thank you for all your heroism. I cannot believe it is just a week away. This blog gives me hope. How are you feelin.' I cannot imagine. Big Huggies

Expand full comment

Total admiration for you. What a battle- the one against humans'easy tendency to organised violence is a hard one to crack. That and the greed. There are good souls around - you are clearly one of them

Expand full comment

Wishing you the best of luck from Sydney Australia.

Expand full comment

I just finished listening to Corban Addison’s book Wasteland which is excellent instruction on how to win against them. Smithfield is the worst is so many ways.

Expand full comment

Appeal appeal appeal IF you’re convicted. Also if what you’re accused of is theft, and you have the video to prove it, seemingly the prosecution would want to show it. It’s insane to me that they can prohibit that!

I’m not a lawyer though. Much love to you and it’s possible you could WIN!!

Expand full comment

This compassionate action of yours makes me proud to be human for a change.

Expand full comment
Sep 28, 2022·edited Sep 28, 2022

Wayne, please be ALERT that the "Peter Singer" in the picture of your email about Smithfield could be a criminal replacement version from that evil turtle demon head. To emphasize, please be ALERT that that evil turtle demon head is the most aggressive militant ID-kidnapper and perpetrator of criminal replacement. It has been psychopathically kidnapping the identities of many outstanding innocent good people and then criminally replacing them by superimposing its very own nasty ugly mark of the beast (turtle forehead/top head) toward them, resulting their good decent images ruined and defamed.

These victims can be holy or lay, royal or civil, alive or deceased, male or female, real or fictional, such as the Holy Pope, Russian President Vladimir Putin, King Charles III, Actor Sean Connery, Prince William, Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh), U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley, actor Sean Connery, and the Sun God in Hollywood movies.

Expand full comment

This article contains misleading claims and a false history of the AR Movement.

You’re only barred from playing the Smithfield video at your trial, a decision which can be appealed if you are convicted, not from showing it on the internet. So, while they clearly don’t want people to see what happens to animals in factory farms they can’t, nor are they trying to, stop you, or anyone else, from showing it on the internet. Nor can they stop people from gathering this footage as our courts have consistently shot down Ag. Gag laws as unconstitutional. While your trial may effect you personally it has no effect on the AR movement's ability to gather and show video from factory farms.

Additionally, I don’t know what “grassroots animal rights movement” your referring to that was “seemingly crushed” after SHAC7 were imprisoned but it wasn’t the AR grassroots movement in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) which has never been afraid to speak out, regardless of what happened to other activists and regardless of being arrested ourselves. “Campaigns, demonstrations, and even outreach” never came close to disappearing in SFBA, virtually or otherwise. The grassroots movement in SFBA, across all AR issues, has always been strong since I joined it in the mid-80s, and we have never been scared to engage in any AR activism pre or post Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. DxE is fairly new to the SFBA so maybe you are not aware of our AR history here but AR activism has always been strong here, pre and post DxE.

Expand full comment

What is misleading about the claim regarding being forbidden from showing the video? How many that are on the jury do you really think are viewing this online? More than likely, the jury won’t even know what the trial is about until they are seated for the trial. And how many of the jury pool do you think are aware of, or involved in animals rights? So it’s a pretty damn big deal that the video cannot be shown at the trial.

Also, why do you seem so angry? This is supposed to be about the animals, not your personality conflict.

Expand full comment

If Wayne’s claim was simply that it’s wrong they are forbidden from showing the jury the video then it wouldn’t be misleading. However, that is not Wayne’s claim. Wayne is arguing that he is being put on trial for a much broader and more sinister reason, which is:

“They don’t want you to see the evidence that led us to conclude that Smithfield, owner of the pig farm we investigated, was engaged in criminal misconduct – so they are barring us from even playing video footage of the alleged crime. They don’t want you to be swayed by our personal stories – so they are attempting to prevent us from providing any testimony as to our motive (i.e., rescuing dying animals) in investigating Circle Four. Indeed, they don’t want you to see what’s really happening at trial – so they are barring members of the public or media from attending the trial in person in court.”

The “you” referred to is clarified in the last sentence as “members of the public or media.” However, barring the defendants from playing the video in court for the jury does nothing to stop members of the public or media from seeing the video or reading about Wayne’s personal stories online, or bar the media from interviewing Wayne. Barring the defendants from showing the video to the jury is not even close to the same as barring the defendants from publicly posting the video and their personal stories for all to see. Although I agree the jury should be allowed to view the video- and the public and media should be allowed to attend- equating barring the jury from viewing the video with public censorship is one of the reasons I find this article misleading.

I think it is also misleading that this article argues this trial is really a broader attack on AR activism in general, with the purpose being “silencing public conversation about factory farms.” Now I would agree that the purpose of Ag-Gag laws is to silence public conversation about factory farms, but this trial, plain and simple, is targeting open rescue specifically and not an attack on AR activism regarding factory farms in general. There are many groups gathering undercover video of factory farms, and many people posting these vids online and showing them on the streets that are not on trial. Nor will this type of activism be impacted if Wayne is convicted, other than people may not have video from open rescues to display. Although I hope Wayne is not convicted, I think this article is blowing the significance of this trial way out of proportion.

The one thing the AR movement has on its side is the truth. If we mislead people or present falsehoods simply to make an opinion piece sound more alarming to rile people up then we no longer have the truth on our side, and our advocacy for animals will fail. I believe maintaining truth in our statements and opinions is essential to our animal advocacy. If you think that by pointing out misleading claims and false historical references- which I outlined in my first post - translates into me being angry then so be it. As a longtime AR activist I’m used to such characterizations and unaffected by them.

Expand full comment

But Pat, my point is that, yes anyone can view this online, but the actual jurors that will decide the merits of this case, most likely have no idea what goes on in a factory farm. The average person that is not involved in animal rights, is completely unaware. They see the happy little animals on tv frolicking in the grass while they enjoy their juicy steak or pork ribs. It may not be that they just don’t care, it may be that they just don’t know. Before I knew…..I didn’t know. I view it as suppressing evidence. I sat on a jury once, and until I was actually there, I had no idea what the trial was even about. You just get a jury summons, and you show up. And what I learned after the trial was over crushed me. Had the defense been allowed to present everything, if nothing else, I would have caused a hung jury. That was over 30 years ago, and it still troubles me to this day. (It was not a trial that resulted in anyone being incarcerated).

I am truly grateful that you are someone that is passionate about helping animals. I guess we will just disagree on this. I don’t view this as blowing anything out of proportion, I don’t think it’s possible to blow what is done to animals out of proportion. And in the animal abuse world, the only truth to them, is “their truth”.

In the end, I hope we all want the same thing. Even after 40+ years, I still am not able to comprehend the cruelty of man toward animals.

Expand full comment