The speech by Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court made in September 2014 questioned “What’s in a name? The speech was about privacy and anonymous speech on the Internet. He touches upon a writer pseudonymously known as Junius. Junius wrote controversial anonymous letters published in the public advertiser. He was a strident critic of the government and his attacks contributed to the resignation of the Prime Minister the Duke of Grafton in 1770. Even members of the judiciary were targets of the writings by Junius. In 1769 Julius addressed a letter to the King which was published stating “Sir, it is the missed fortune of your life, and originally because of every reproach and distress which has attended your government, that you should never have been acquainted with the language of truth, until you heard it in the complaints of your people.”
Junius's letter continued to complain of the violations of the laws and attacks upon the vital principles of the constitution. The publication of this letter led to the trial of Henry Woodford the publisher of the public advertiser, for seditious libel. In 1770 the case came before Lord Mansfield who is now considered one of the greatest ever Lord Chief Justice is who himself was a favourite target of Junius he once termed him “the worst and most dangerous man in the kingdom”. In 1771 Samuel Johnson a lexicographer and famously high Tory wrote of Junius that “his safety was provided by impenetrable secrecy where Junius enjoyed all the immunities of invisibility”. In fact Junius “drew most of his strength from his anonymity whereby he was able to make criticism of the powerful and face no prosecution.” In his criticisms Junius offered a firm voice prompting both political and legal change, and is now remembered as one of the greatest political writers yet his identity remains a mystery. It was once raised with Johnson, whether it was right to conceal Junius's identity. Johnsen's response was “supposing the author had told me confidentially that he had written Junius, and I were asked if he had, I should hold myself at liberty to deny it, as being under a previous promise, express or implied, to conceal it. Now what I ought to do for the author, may I not do for myself?”
The point of Junius, brings us to modern day technology and the Internet with anonymous blogging and videos. Among the mainstream press we now have those who resemble the anonymous Junius in the blogging sphere. For many this is used as a release of frustration or confessional and has therefore thrived. A well-known example would be political blogger Guido Fawkes who barely maintained anonymity of five months before being unmasked by The Guardian. The more successful and popular a blog becomes the greater interest in the identity of the author by the mainstream press. Lord Rodger stated, “What’s in the name? A lot, stories about individuals are more attractive than stories about unidentified people. They risk not being read and passed on which could threaten the viability of a newspaper or magazine and would not make enough money.” It is therefore in the presses interest to publish names. The Sunday Times laid the onis on the bloggers claiming, if bloggers were made aware anonymity was not always an absolute then bloggers would be more careful.
It is also important to question whether knowing the authors identity is in the public interest or rather just of public interest. Night Jack another blogger make critical allegations and observations of police activity. In this case Mr Justice Eady stated that blogging was a public not private activity so should therefore not enjoy the expectation of privacy. This raises the question to what extent can one expect with anonymous speech as what Junius enjoyed in the Internet age? If these activities are classed as public activity it may be difficult to argue for the expectation of privacy. After all, email hacking as what happened in this case and led to the Levenson Inquiry, and then an apology is possible. This brings us to anonymous speech and privacy on the Internet. By the end of 2014, it was estimated 3 billion people approximately 40% of the world's population use the Internet. In Reno v ACLU at the US Supreme Court the Internet was termed the most participated form of mass speach yet developed and therefore deserving the highest level of protection. Under European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Internet speech engages article 8 rights going beyond “privacy” encompassing personal autonomy and self-development as well as the right to develop relationships with others.
A person's article 8 rights reinforces his or her article 10 right, freedom of expression. This has led to a technological arms race. In China there are real name registration sites leading to direct and indirect censorship and South Korea instigating a similar policy with a hacking attack leading to the loss of 35 million users data. This data protection is something we enjoy under ECHR. But, consider the United States anonymity rights where they get to browse and communicate with greater anonymity under the most robust protection. Under European law tension exists between article 10 rights which may trump the authors article 8 rights where it could be suggested that it's the public's interest knowing the anonymous identity outweighing what the author has to say. And what about press freedom which is not expressly protected by article 10 but however is under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This suggests an offer of an anonymous blog should enjoy the protection rivalling the protection of an anonymous press source. It is frequently observed in newspaper articles details coming from an anonymous source. After all article 10 paragraph 2 of the Convention states that the right to freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities.
It was in 2014 that this speech was made and since then we have seen the growth of nationalism and populism within our societies in Europe and in America. With this growth of nationalism and populism on both continents we are seeing great suppression of information and opinions especially since 2016, whereby governments are using legislation to crack down on so-called hate speech which may defy a political agenda set by our elites. It is likely that with the growth of nationalism and populism in the political sphere controls on the Internet and regarding anonymity will become much tighter with greater legislation both on the European continent and in the US. This will no doubt affect all political ideologies in their criticism of our governments. It is therefore important that we work together on this probability to ensure that global elites both political and those of corporations do not take over our human rights.