Wrong again. First case she didn't have to put her full address on, but everyone knew who she was because she was actually walking around giving them out and she didn't mislead them.

Second case is about religious freedom and the government not having the right to out members of a religion.

Neither of the cases are about a person being totally anonymous, or someone spewing hate speech anonymously, or someone bullying someone anonymously.

But hey, people will spin this into "I now have the right to troll a guy's dead grandma."

Additionally, these are just court cases. Sure they have a slight force of law if applied narrowly to similar cases. When I say a right I mean in the constitution or an amendment. People say like to say the constitution allows anonymous speech but it doesn't by any stretch.

So, if I were to be exact: I stand corrected, there are two obscure cases that relate to two small situations not related to the internet which allows for a small amount of anonymous speech, which does not give people a total right to be anonymous all the time.

Supreme court and most lower courts have consistently ruled for anonymous speech rights. It's kind of ingrained into the national character with the Federalist Papers and all that.

AFAIK, there's never been a supreme court ruling against anonymous speech rights. There have been lower court rulings against them, usually in cases that look like stalking.

By default, all speech is presumed to be permitted under U.S. law. The First Amendment, and related court cases, concern the power of the government to limit speech--not the right of free speech itself. So, to make the case that anonymous speech is not a right in the U.S., you would need to show a case where the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the government may limit anonymous speech. I'm not aware of any such case.

You're proposing what sounds like a pretty novel interpretation of the first amendment. Do you have any evidence that it's widely accepted, or that it's correct?

> People say like to say the constitution allows anonymous speech but it doesn't by any stretch

Source?