This is fair enough: Web sites with open comments aren’t really like newspapers. But in interpreting Section 230, federal appeals courts went a step further. They have said that the law gives the providers and sites a free pass for essentially all content that users post. That’s why Private Voyeur didn’t have to police its pages for the reappearance of Lani’s photos. It’s also why Google doesn’t get in trouble for surfacing these posts in search results, which is perhaps even more damaging.

There’s no question that the Web would be a more civilized place if Congress changed Section 230 to hold online service providers and Web sites liable for posts like “Jap Slut” (or Google liable for indexing them) if they have clear notice about what’s wrong with the content and still disseminate it. That’s how copyright law works online. What’s tricky about extending this approach is that some posts would be deleted not because they actually defame or violate privacy but because someone complains that they do. The heckler’s veto, as it’s called, is anathema to free-speech advocates, as well as to the big Internet companies, which don’t want to be responsible for any user content, given the Web’s volume and pace. So don’t look for Section 230 to change any time soon.

And that leaves people like Lani in a lousy situation. Their only option for using the law to punish trolls is to sue for defamation or invasion of privacy, as Lani has done. The problem is that while she could win a court order unmasking the troll’s identity (and ultimately win damages), it’s hard to bring such a suit without making her own humiliation complete. Though the “Jap Slut” post and pictures are public, they’re still largely out of sight. Lani’s children and parents don’t know about them, and neither do the customers at her business. But if she were to file this kind of suit, Lani would risk linking the photos to her name forever, not just in the Web’s dark corners but also in court documents and news coverage.

Which is why we need to pursue another way to take legal action — one that has been out of favor but ought to be given new life in the Internet age. We should encourage more anonymous-plaintiff lawsuits.

Fighting an anonymous smear with an anonymous lawsuit is a counterintuitive idea — and a lot of judges, including the judge on Lani’s case, are reluctant to try it. But there’s some precedent in American law for suing anonymously when a case revolves around private sexual or medical facts. That’s how we got Roe v. Wade. “These kinds of suits don’t squelch much speech, but they still address the harm,” points out the University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron, an expert on the topic. Indeed, if more people sued anonymously, the trolls might understand that hiding behind an online handle doesn’t mean you can’t be traced — and there might be fewer hateful posts as a result. Courts have ordered Google to turn over I.P. addresses in a few of these cases. The lawyers who represent Lani have two other clients who succeeded in suing their trolls anonymously, and who won settlements while remaining unknown to the public (though not to the defendant) throughout. The lawyers are starting a nonprofit, Without My Consent, to help bring more such cases.