Our group was of one of the two camps that seem to have formed around this polarizing topic (at least in regard to the case of Michael Brutsch): we believe anonymity is something to be protected. With regards to Brutsch, we all agreed that while what he did may have been tasteless, it was not illegal, and with that in mind, the consequences he faced certainly seem like those deserving of a lawbreaker. We know he lost his job, and there's no telling what sort of hell his personal life became. Despite this, he was operating within the grounds of what both Reddit and the law permit.
Of course, anonymity varies across different sections of the Internet, and there are cases where it is used to break the law and cause harm. However, it is the job of the government to find ways to combat the minority that takes advantage of anonymity with hostile intent without destroying the foundation of many Internet communities for so many others. As long as you aren't breaking the law, the Internet should be as free as you want it to be, and that includes varied degrees of anonymity as well as restricting that which is personal from government eyes. I don't have a solution for the government in this case, but the violations of privacy are not right.
Personally, I feel very strongly that the sanctity of anonymity must be kept. My reasoning is that in real world interactions, there is always a web of complicated social repercussions for any sort of discussion or topic. Some things are "taboo" because they're either embarrassing or simply not socially acceptable by the majority. Point being, these things are perfectly legal, and certain locations on the Internet such as Reddit or even 4chan are perfect outlets. Reddit in particular has been liberating as a place to discuss hobbies that most people might dismiss, or to discuss embarrassing topics that people wouldn't want tied to their own name. It is something I consider very valuable, and I'd not be okay with it being taken away because of the actions of a criminal minority. Coming full circle, Michael Brutsch's actions may have been unacceptable by the public, but he was posting in a safe place without breaking the rules. It is necessary that people understand that they shouldn't ever put pictures of themselves on the Internet that they aren't okay with circulating. It is not of their control once it is posted, and in that way, Brutsch did nothing wrong. It can be argued that neither did Chen in outing him, but my personal position is that while the individuals whose pictures Brutsch posted essentially gave him the right to do so the moment they put those photos up, Brutsch was in a location that stresses anonymity and the omission of all personal details. By being outed, and suddenly having that embarrassing activity shown to the full public, I believe he was betrayed.