The internet was the enabler behind most of my middle school drama.

The enigmatic anonymity that the web provides was a big green light for mean teenagers to harass other mean teenagers without the consequences of face-to-face confrontations. And it was this online shield that facilitated the worst culprit behind my pubescent angst: the fake screenname.

Fake screennames were the best way to tear your enemy (or popular best friend) apart incognito. You could lash out ruthlessly, ruin lives and then delete said screenname without being linked to any of the drama that would surely ensue.

I will never forget my most potent digital nemesis: ClawYourEyesOut. ClawYourEyesOut not only harassed me on a nightly basis with the unoriginal “slut,” “bitch” name-calling. He/she also IMed my adorable little boyfriend Brad and my bitchy, gullible friends and spread nasty rumors which quickly turned them against me.

And even though ClawYourEyesOut brutally defamed my reputation, there was nothing I could do about it. To this day, ClawYourEyesOut’s identity still eludes me.

But thanks to two female Yale Law School grads—who suffered a magnified version of my ClawYourEyesOut saga, online anonymity may not be such an impenetrable issue in the future.

The two women are trying to uncover the identity of 28 pseudonyms behind discussion board posts that spread rumors about their academic records, sexuality and even threatened rape.

The anonymous statements—which MSNBC dubbed “digital graffiti”—were posted on AutoAdmit, a law-school discussion site where employers can dig up the dirt on prospective employees. This being the case, the libelous remarks cost the two women legal internships and job opportunities.

Had these defamatory statements been published online by a known person, the women would have a strong case since the libel laws which hold newspapers accountable for defamation of character extend to the blogosphere. However, since you can’t sue a pseudonym (ie: Erica Segal vs. SexyKitten143), these women are trying to unearth the identities behind the posts.

They are suing the website’s manager—who denied their request to remove the defamatory posts—in hopes of subpoenaing information about the anonymous posters (ie: what computers the posts came from…so anyone who posted from Starbucks lucked out).

If the women win this case, victims of anonymous online defamation and harmful unwanted attention—like Allison Stokke—may be able to uncover the living, breathing humans behind the name-calling keyboards.

Who knows… if I can prove that ClawYourEyesOut caused me serious emotional distress, maybe I can subpoena his/her identity and finally get some closure (read: seek revenge).