The two issues are distinct, but they are often carelessly merged, to the detriment of both issues.
I've been rolling around issues like this. I'd like to post my complete reasoning someday, but for now, consider this. I think that yes, we do have the right to not have to identify ourselves on a message board. I also think that no particular message board is obligated to allow people to remain anonymous.
Free speech or cyber-slander?: "The chatters claim a First Amendment right to post messages on electronic bulletin boards using pseudonyms. They have scored some success in challenging attempts to pry loose their identities from Internet service providers."
A lightweight DMCA summary from USA Today. Nothing new, but it can bring you up to speed on the issues (if not the reasoning behind them) quickly.
CNET.com - DoubleClick held at arm's length by partners: "AltaVista and Kozmo.com have distanced themselves from Internet advertising network DoubleClick partly out of concerns about its handling of privacy issues, according to reports." Wow, that's unusually gutsy for companies like that...
"Your honor, that genetic evidence introduced that placed me at the scene of the murder was illegally analyzed in violation of patent #6,274,283, 'Jeremy Bowers'." OK, it wouldn't fly in a criminal trial, but there are other situations it probably would, like if your insurance company tries to deny you after analyzing your genes? Might be worth the price of the patent application to possibly have something to beat over the heads of an insurance company someday... ("Fine, you won't cover me? I'm suing for patent violation relief.")
Not 100% Internet related yet, but it will be. Regarding the woman patenting herself... pay attention to how it comes out, don't just view it as an oddity. In fact, if you were British, you should be filling out a patent application for yourself right now. Do it before its blocked. If you can get a patent, you'll be in a good position for the coming genetic problems.
Holding parents accountable for their children's actions is becoming increasingly out-of-date. Unfortunately, we hold parents accountable for good and sufficient reasons, and those reasons aren't disappearing, it's just that teenagers are becoming capable of committing larger and larger crimes that the parents can be completely unaware of. For instance, collecting illegal MP3s can give a fine or a jail term, and it's going to be very easy in 10 years to completely hide them from your parents (after mass storage devices are so big that the odd gigabytes eaten here or there arouses no suspicion). Can we hold parents accountable for this?
"But it was one of the younger members of the House -- Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee -- who appeared the most confused. She said that parents should be held legally responsible for what their teen-age children do 'on those Internet channels.'" I've never heard a better argument for not having children... you may find yourself responsible for their felonious actions, and spend time in prison. (If you haven't had teenaged children in a while, and haven't been one yourself, please rest assured that it is impossible to completely police a teenager. They are as clever as any other human who doesn't want to be caught, and, with the aid of a computer, can hide things right under your nose without all that much effort, no matter how good a parent you are.)
Govt Wants Less Web Anonymity: "The U.S. government may need sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute future denial-of-service attacks, top law enforcement officials said Tuesday." Clever... we all knew it was coming so they waited until it blew over to announce this. We'll see if the network news picks up on this...