Yeah, this is a fair point. He does list those examples, yes. The thing is I simply don’t believe that those examples are wholly true. I do think you have something of a valid point that he was alleging things beyond “people found out and told other people,” so my example and the way I presented it wasn’t wholly fair.

Here’s what Thomas says:

Amici ’s examples relate principally to Proposition 8, a state ballot proposition that California voters narrowly passed in the 2008 general election. Proposition 8 amended California’s constitution to provide that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Const., Art. I, §7.5. Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount of his contributions. 1 See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §84211(f) (West 2005). The California Secretary of State was then required to post this information on the Internet. See §§84600–84601; §§84602–84602.1 (West Supp. 2010); §§84602.5–84604 (West 2005); §85605 (West Supp. 2010); §§84606–84609 (West 2005).

Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.” Complaint in ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8 v. Bowen , Case No. 2:09–cv–00058–MCE–DAD (ED Cal.), ¶31. Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Id. , ¶32. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance. Id. , ¶33.

Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. Lott & Smith, Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 26, 2008, p. A13. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. Ibid. And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protesters” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.” Lopez, Prop. 8 Stance Upends Her Life, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 14, 2008, p. B1. The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Ibid. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.” Donor Disclosure, supra, at A13.

So this construction has been called “The Ship of Theseus”. It’s actually a very cleverly dishonest method. How it works is that someone makes the statement:

People exercising their freedom of speech have received death threats because the location of their homes and businesses was shown

While not mentioning that:

• “Freedom of speech” means they gave money
• “Received death threats” means they claimed they’d received death threats, in a lawsuit where they had a vested interest in skewing the perceived consequences they’d received as far as possible. As far as I can tell there’s no other indication of death threats.
• “Location of their homes and businesses” means what city they live in. You can look at how the records look here, or here if you want to look it up for federal contributions. Doesn’t look like it contains addresses, although Thomas’s argument very deftly makes it sound like it does without saying so.

So if you attach significant caveats or reconstructions to every single element of the sentence, it’s technically true in the aggregate.

I think some of the conduct Thomas talks about is actually pretty bad to the extent that it happened. It’s also illegal already, though, and with good reason. Death threats are illegal, showing up and disrupting a business and refusing to leave is illegal, blackmail is illegal. Firing someone because you learned something you didn’t like about their politics is legal, and likely to remain so. Thomas draws up this whole construction, out of like 3-4 anecdotes, where it sounds like the most urgent problem is that people found out who “supports” some measure and then it’s common for people to go out and harass them, and that the only solution is to make it secret who spends money on what political campaigns, when you have to look at this whole thing in a manner that’s skewed by three or four levels of separation from the plain facts of how it happened in order to reach that conclusion.