With 600+ Million users, its safe to say you're a minority on this one. Sorry.
Ah ... its like that bit in Hitchhikers where they have the cow that slaughters itself.
I'm an AVID defender of free speech, and have run a number of 'safe haven' forums in the past which naturally drew a number of trolls. I don't have a problem with trolling, even when it gets sadistic, personal and crosses every line that it can -- most people do.
The general cure for that is the lack of anonymity. It won't happen to the roguish young in many cases, but for many people, knowing that it CAN be tracked back to them eventually is enough to keep the really bad attacks out of play.
I live in a country where I have absolutely no problem admitting to anyone that I don't believe in any gods, but it seems that in America this can and often has ripped families apart. Should those people be excluded from any public discourse regarding their beliefs?
The price which has to be paid in this dystopian future of yours is far too high, especially when the "trolls" you are trying to vanquish could just as easily be moderated out of existence wherever they became a problem.
How many other parts of our lives should we be forced to expose in order to take part in a community? HIV status? Voting history? Race? Whatever you feel the limit should be, I feel that peoples real names, races and locations is far more than anyone should ever have to share.
On a more mundane note, what about losing a job at Apple e because a search for your name brought up a few very negative, but non-trollish, comments you made about the iPhone, or perhaps Apple as a company.
These examples are generalised and unlikely... But not outside the realm of possibility.
Also, I'm not looking to eliminate the trolls in the world -- forced anonymity wouldn't CURE it, but would almost certainly lessen its presence considerably. However, having seen first hand how entirely unnecessarily negative attacks can destroy a community.
You bring up an interesting point though, in that speech can be 'moderated into existence' -- which in my opinion, is even more oppressive than public identifiability. You would institute censorship to restore anonymity? I consider that the worst of the two ideas.
Where necessary, implement some form of community moderation, much like here, unpopular comments are greyed out, on other sites, like Reddit, they are hidden until requested.
Forced anonymity will forever be a pipe-dream anyway I think.
It's a tricky subject, I agree, and it's clear we lie on different sides of what we consider to be acceptable, but ultimately, it's quite hard to have a community drive site the doesn't devolve -- HN, Reddit, Digg, and every other online community is a testament to that.
The fact that it's technically non-trivial to identify a person absolutely makes it harder to keep trolls away, as they're always free to get a new IP address and re-register as another username, which makes it harder to enforce standards in the community.