Again, voicing the unpopular (but only by a certain percentage) opinion, I answer this:

Sometimes anonymity is necessary to be able to say things that need to be said, but no one dares to say under their own name.

There are no such things.

There is no such thing as "a thing that needs to be said" but that you don't "dare" say under an identifiable personal handle in this Perlmonks community. Maybe in a forum discussing as its primary topic "childhood sexual abuse" or "substance addiction", yes. Not in Perlmonks. This is a completely bogus argument, and I am sorry to see that I was apparently the first one to call it what it is.

It's disastrous to a society when moral cowardice is in charge. People who seek to avoid all risk of personal loss (defined broadly) while still having an influence on the world around them, and even seek to have this "protection" from the reality of human life ("the world is a harsh place", "life is often unfair", "adults take responsibility for their own actions/choices", yada, yada) instititutionalized are cowardly. Hey, sorry, but this isn't name-calling. This is what "cowardice" is. Check a dictionary.

I agree with all 3 of tirwhan's proposals, and not merely because I was a target of an anonymous troll's campaign earlier this year. I continue to perceive a degradation of the quality of content on Perlmonks resulting from this misconceived fake "tolerance" (it's passivity masquerading as something benign) of Anonymous Abuse.