Slashdot links to the story but uses some potentially misleading absolutes in their summary. Reading through the story, the veil of anonymity can still be pierced but only when a cause of action is proven and that anonymity is being used to avoid liability.
Still, this is a pretty clear endorsement of anonymous free speech online and good cause for celebration for those protected by the ruling. I would dearly love to see judges elsewhere undertake this same sort of push back, requiring that legislators enact john doe processes rather than having to deal with the the propped up and conflicting standards for the same that has emerged out of case law. Sadly, I think that ship has sailed for places like here, in the US.