Zoe Rosenberg, a 23-year-old graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley has been sentenced to 90 days in jail. She was found guilty of felony conspiracy and three misdemeanor counts related to her participation in an animal liberation action at a Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse in 2020. As this case shot across the bow of 501(c)4s, it has drawn considerable attention. Its implications on animal rights activism and legal ramifications of such actions are monumental.
In October, Rosenberg was convicted. She was a leader in Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a grassroots nationwide organization that has been vigorously fighting for animal liberation since 2014. Rosenberg and other activists heroically stormed the center in the midst of the attack. They adopted four of the hens and named them Poppy, Ivy, Aster, and Azalea. These birds all later found homes at an avian sanctuary.
Rosenberg’s language allows up to 60 days to be served under alternatives like house arrest. Even though she could have faced a maximum penalty of four and a half years, her sentence was drastically cut. The court ordered her to pay more than $100,000 in restitution to Petaluma Poultry. This ruling highlights the financial implications of her wrongdoing.
Rosenberg pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing the hens. She justified her actions as the only thing she knew how to do in response to a devastating new reality she saw spreading like wildfire.
“I will not apologize for taking sick, neglected animals to get medical care.” – Zoe Rosenberg
The case has opened up a much-needed discussion about the nature of activism and its place in the movement for animal welfare. Supporters counter that people like Rosenberg need to be praised, not criminalized, for stepping in to rescue vulnerable animals.
Actor Joaquin Phoenix expressed support for Rosenberg, stating, “When individuals step in to save a life because the system has looked the other way, they should be supported – not prosecuted.” This feeling expresses a deep rift between long-settled conceptions of property rights and the nascent discussion around animal rights.
At the same time, critics of DxE — including representatives of the local business community — have expressed serious concerns over the group’s tactics. Dayna Ghirardelli, a spokesperson for affected farmers, stated, “For years, DxE has harassed farm families and workers, trespassed on private property, and stolen from local businesses.” This view highlights the continuing conflicts that exist between animal rights activists and factory farms.
The case has drawn national attention to the predicament of animal welfare activists and their treatment by the courts with respect to their actions. Society has some serious, intractable problems. Rosenberg’s case has the potential to spark crucial conversations about the need to balance animal rights with property laws.