I have pointed out before the ridiculous fact that the orchestrators of serious boycotts ( think Pepsi) are complaining that boycott threats justify eliminating fundamental public disclosure measures. I am heartened by the fact that the Judge hearing the petition by the Yes on 8 compaign was quick to explain the protected nature of the “harrassment” speech at issue.

But there is an important lesson to be learned here.

When your enemies jump up and down you need to start paying attention. The chief complaint in this lawsuit was the potential for retaliatory boycotts. So, we need to start boycotting.

Now, an effective campaign does not target low-level employees from the Yes on 8 list. Instead, the name of every small business owner, every CEO or managing partner should be identified and publicized. Our large organizations that are most able to lead on this issue should disseminate a list of business, both for California and for the enture country. We should have transparancy about why certain businesses made the list and why some did not. We should have guidelines about how to boycott and what to say when asked about the boycott.

This court ruling is an opportunity. I hope we take it.