As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings, especially ones related to the Internet.
(Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc. First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not treated as an absolute.) =snip=
you might want to check out ... McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION certiorari to the supreme court of ohio No. 93-986. Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 which can be found at ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZS.filt --- syllabus ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZO.filt --- opinion ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC.filt --- concurring ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC1.filt --- concurring ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZD.filt --- dissenting a snippet from the synopsis... After petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express the views of ``CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS'' oppos- ing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribu- tion of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Ap- peals reinstated the fine. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that the burdens 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amend- ment rights were ``reasonable'' and ``nondiscriminatory'' and therefore valid. Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons who distribute campaign materials containing fraud, libel, or false advertising and to provide voters with a mechanism for evaluating such materials, the court distinguished Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, in which this Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting. ------------------------ Name: amp E-mail: amp@pobox.com Date: 12/30/96 Time: 05:11:23 Visit http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum EARTH FIRST! We'll strip mine the other planets later. ------------------------