What about spoken words?
What makes online speech different, from the perspective of the Constitution that limits the power of the state?
What I've described does not restrict one's ability to speak freely. It is most similar to an impressum except it bears no identifying mark thus poses no hazard to anonymous speech.
Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking.
“Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amendment, assuming you can get enough people to agree with your assessment.
By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. They both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech) after all.
> Impressums cannot be required in the US
Yes but why can't they be required? My (quite possibly flawed) understanding was that SCOTUS previously established that publishing without attribution could not directly be outlawed, recognizing the ability to speak anonymously as an important aspect of political speech. What I have described does not run afoul of that. It neither restricts one's ability to speak nor provides for any form of attribution.
> “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights
Regardless of either your or my personal opinion SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights when a compelling need is presented and the remedy is sufficiently targeted. That said, I don't believe that what I described infringes on the first amendment to begin with so your point is doubly moot.
