I feel you're using a lot of noncentral meanings of terms here - "harassing" a "group" by drawing attention to something they're doing, publically, to another person, which severely impacts that person's life in a comparison with revealing somebody's identity in order to enable harassment of their private life.

I note that it's "the same" side in both situations that you're comparing, who thinks imposing personal consequences for civil, public speech is a legitimate substitute for debate. What Scott is doing is very dissimilar from what that group of students was doing, but what they were doing is very similar to what the NYT is trying to do.