That’s little different from a boycott, which has always been a tool available to the powerless.
There was the case of the guy working for the company involved in the Obama campaign who published a paper based on a study of an african-american professor saying that historically speaking violent riots will lead to more right leaning people voting. He got called out a racist, made to apologise, got fired and ostracised in his research community. Would you say he got boycotted?
Maybe not, but I still see it in the same general category as a boycott, because: if nothing illegal is actually going on, then what can anyone do to stop it, except impose authoritarian restrictions on free speech? If the company/institution wants to ignore people, fine, but they’ll have to deal with the consequences. (If those consequences are personal, e.g. death threats, then those should be nipped in the bud. But my feeling is that they’re usually financial or reputational.)
Leftist extremism is exactly avoiding the court system by applying pressure to rob people of their livelihood - a much more immediate, public, and potent method of intimidation - and an excellent way to set an example to others who might speak against the theocracy.