Besides, in a court case of libel or slander, it has to be proven that the insult has harmed the victim in a meaningful, quantifiable way. That means sales have dropped, medications have been administered, etc. -- there has to be proof that the insults were truly harmful in reality to that person. NOT just that "her feelings were hurt". Defaming someone has to hurt them somehow in a way that can be shown by evidence. How did Cohen prove that this level was reached for her? She didn't.
The fact that a judge (or group of judges) allowed this case to even be heard stuns me, because such a case cannot deliver the aforementioned proof of real harm.
Our American Revolution would not have happened if not for the ubiquity of anonymous pamphlets being distributed throughout the colonies, uniting the people and bringing to light the injustices of taxation without representation (among other things). Without the freedom to speak anonymously, half of journalist's sources disappear. There is no Watergate. Nixon uses his corrupt tactics to hang onto power, and we get a different future.
Etc., etc. Protected anonymous free speech is a vital part of free speech in the US. Not to understand this fact is a dangerous ignorance.