"Dismayingly routine", because also on Slashdot, we get this entry:
Illinois Supreme Court: Comcast Must Identify Anonymous Internet Commenterhttp://yro.slashdot....s-internet-commenter
An anonymous reader writes: In 2011, an anonymous person on the internet posted a comment to the Freeport Journal Standard newspaper's website implying that a local political candidate *******. The candidate, Bill Hadley, took offense to this, and tried to get Comcast to tell him who the commenter was.
Comcast refused, so Hadley took it to the courts. The Illinois Supreme Court has now ruled (PDF) that Comcast must divulge the commenter's identity. "Illinois' opinion was based in large part on a pair of earlier, lower-court decisions in the state, which held that the anonymity of someone who makes comments in response to online news stories isn't guaranteed if their opinions are potentially defamatory, according to Don Craven, an attorney for the Illinois Press Association."
Important Redaction mine! Because I purposely want the issue known, not the "hot button noun" running around.
Iain probably knows more than me about this next bit - If someone is gonna express "frustration" about someone, I think you can even graph it scientifically that it's gonna have "inflammatory content". So what all these nasty cases are doing, are setting up the gradient scale. Echoes of:
"First they came for the people who called someone a (A). Then they came for people who called someone (B). Then they came for me."
"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."