This is one of the main things that social movements do. They identify what they regard as an issue, or "problem," and then make claims about this. A classic example is the feminist movement(s) which saw the issue of male dominance, male entitlement, and male violence, and made claims about it in reference to the ideologies of patriarchy and misogyny.
When a social movement starts to make claims about the issues that concern them, a "counterforce" may emerge in order to make counter-claims. Then they become involved in what Tom Regan calls a "battle of ideas." The classic example given in this claim/counter-claim scenario is that of the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
It seems to me that a counterforce to the recent boost in interest in veganism is emerging - and they are being pretty smart in terms of their claims-making. For example, lots of other animal farmers and farming representatives have recently, as if reading from a script, begun to claim that they are on the receiving end of hate speech, to the extent that they have had meetings with anti-terrorist police officers. They are claiming that "militant vegans" are calling them lots of negative names online, including "rapists" - in relation to artificial insemination, "murderers," and "Nazis."
This seems clearly to have sensationalised the recent conversations about the rise in veganism - and they clearly intend for these words to shock people into thinking negatively about vegans, just as some vegans will use such language in order to "morally shock" their audience.
The question is - is that a smart move? I briefly address that question in this video...