Reading LJ or posting comments in it does not require authentication. But at issue is the LJ owners’ right to delete the accounts of their registered users, upon accusing them of violating TOS. I would pay pretty penny for a legal outcome that affirmed the right of registered users of online communities to free speech in violation of their agreed upon TOS. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.
    As for the targets of calls for unlawful indiscriminate extermination, I am not too concerned about pinpointing their identity. The stringent test of Brandenburg v. Ohio needs not be satisfied in determining the fact of TOS violation. In fact, TOS XIV.5 stipulates that “LiveJournal and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to remove or refuse or remove any Content that is available through the Service.” Your sole realistic remedy upon finding yourself a victim of such refusal or removal, would be to negotiate for a backup copy of your user contributed content, on the grounds of your intellectual property rights vested therein. Forcing LJ to maintain on their servers any specific content contributed by any given user is a judicial non-starter for a variety of reasons, beginning with their liability for doing so.