could not qualify under the doctrine. Here, however, the Doe Companies, the prime opponents of the decree and the most vigorous accusers of Microsoft, appeared anonymously. That is quite a departure from normal procedure, and raises profound questions of fundamental fairness and perhaps even due process. It might well be that a party forced to confront an anonymous plaintiff (or the functional equivalent of a plaintiff acting as an amici) could suffer injury that might not be redress-able in an ultimate appeal. Anonymity may well confer a kind of immunity which permits a plaintiff to hurl rhetorical weapons that could cause a unique kind of harm not faced in ordinary litigation. Cf. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1524, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) (<HOLDING>). However, in our view, it is unnecessary to
recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that state official english law violated the first amendment and the fourteenth amendments guarantee of equal protection under a strict scrutiny analysis because it impinges upon both the fundamental right to participate equally in the political process and the right to petition the government for redress holding that it violated the first amendment to prohibit announcement of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election holding that ohio election law forbidding all anonymous political leafletting violated the first amendment but noting that the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct holding that primary election ballot filing fee violated fourteenth amendment and noting that the primary election may be more crucial than the general election in certain parts of texas