One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Thomas Paine would say you have a very bad idea there.
There are times when anonymity serves a greater purpose. If I lived in a predominately Islamic-ruled country and wanted to criticize the ruling class about their policies towards women, or introduce the idea that maybe Islam is not a good basis for a legal system, I damned sure would want to remain anonymous while doing so, lest I wind up getting imprisoned or whipped to within an inch of my life over the charge of "blasphemy" (yes, that's a thing in some places, and yes, it goes on even today.)
A better US-based reason? Leaks to the press. Leaks are what point us to uncovering crimes and misdemeanors by public officials. A historical example? Watergate's "Deep Throat". A recent example? Mrs. Clinton's little habit of accepting massive amounts of payola from foreign sources to her "charity" while she was Secretary of State. If it weren't for a leak to the press, no one outside of a few elites would know about it.
So no, m'dear - removing anonymity is not a good thing.