Is Online Anonymity a Protected Freedom or a Mask for Malice?

Freedom of speech is freedom against tyranny, and essential to human flourishing. The battle to protect freedom of speech – and its inseparable counterpart, freedom of thought – is never over. However, I can’t help but notice that people are increasingly taking up this fight anonymously, making it much easier for politicians to ignore.

Long before the internet, people often voiced ideas without revealing their real name. In the 18th century, writers of the Federalist Papers adopted the pseudonym “Publius” to argue in favour of a US constitution. To this day, letter-writers via mainstream newspapers can mask their identity and speak truth to power without fear of reprisal. In these bygone examples, the publisher acts as a trusted gatekeeper and bears ultimate liability.

Then the internet came along and democratised publishing. It has never been easier for our words to reach millions of people in an instant, and it has also never been easier to do it anonymously. Like the gatekeepers of the past, your internet service provider and social media companies still know who you are, but they enjoy limitations on their liability that traditional publishers do not. In this environment, anonymity has flourished.

In Australia, there is no absolute legal right to anonymity. It is largely a byproduct of other rights and legal protections. When it comes to concealing our identity, we’re at the mercy of government and the courts. Outside of (weak) whistleblower and witness protection laws which can allow for anonymous reporting and testimony, anonymity is a privilege in Australia, not a right.

A lot of people will point to privacy protections enshrined in legislation, but it is important to understand the distinction between anonymity and privacy. Privacy is about keeping what you do hidden, anonymity is about keeping who you are hidden.

If you post a comment under a pseudonym, everyone sees the comment but don’t know you wrote it; that is anonymity. If you keep a diary no one else reads, that is privacy. Anonymity means people can observe an activity but not link it to your identity, whereas privacy means preventing people from observing your activity altogether. You might cherish privacy – for example, by not sharing your personal life on social media – without needing anonymity, or vice versa, such as posting your political views on social media under a pseudonym.

Online anonymity is often the shield that protects whistleblowers, dissidents, and everyday people with politically or socially unpopular opinions – something that even Australia’s despicable eSafety Commissioner acknowledges. Online anonymity can help shine light into dark places, fuel creativity, encourage candour and protect you from unfair reprisal. Recent history is littered with examples, because a good idea, a powerful argument or the truth doesn’t need a known author for us to appreciate its value.

Equally, online anonymity can often be a mask for malice. In the digital age, anonymity has flourished, and so too has incivility. Critics of online anonymity argue that it enables the worst of anti-social human behaviour, and they’re right. Like an unknown, road-raging idiot behind the wheel of a car, when someone is behind a keyboard and unidentifiable, they’re removed from the immediate social consequences of their behaviour.

Renowned clinical psychologist and staunch defender of free speech, Dr Jordan Peterson, has labelled anonymous trolls “contemptible cowards” and claims that “anonymity enables psychopathy” more than it protects free speech. Dr Peterson would argue that you have a moral obligation to speak the truth and a social obligation to behave civilly. He has also said you must bear responsibility and shoulder the consequences for what you’ve got to say in the knowledge that, by behaving civilly and speaking the truth, the world will be a better place. It is a very compelling argument, and one that he is well-placed to make.

However, the courage demonstrated by Dr Peterson, resulting in his rise to prominence, can be hard to summon. The cost of expressing oneself freely and the risk of retaliation can be too great to bear.

With the rise of trolling and the advent of online disinformation, the instinct of governments in Australia has been to regulate. Unfortunately, Australians too frequently look to government for a solution.

In recent years, we have seen a flurry of proposals that inch toward stripping citizens of their ability to speak freely – anonymously or otherwise. New social media bans, misinformation and hate speech laws, digital identification rules, and censorious bureaucrats are all a symptom of encroaching government control over freedom of speech.

Both major parties are getting it wrong. Labor’s paternalism (from misinformation legislation to their infamous proposal to censor the internet with a “clean feed” filter) and the Coalition’s law-and-order instincts (everything from the eSafety Commissioner to encryption-cracking legislation) converge on a distrust of citizens’ freedom online.

Online anonymity is a double-edged sword, but one worth wielding. It can cut in harmful ways, giving cover to trolls and bullies, but it is also a protective shield for privacy, dissent, and the free exchange of ideas. The free market needs to solve some of these problems before the government steps in. Crowd-sourced fact-checking and the ability to separate anonymous users from verified accounts have proven to be useful tools. Social media platforms can do more to empower individuals, without state coercion.

You can also do more. Your ability to speak anonymously has important social value, and it should be a protected right. But what I hope is that more people find the courage and security they need to put their name to their words, because that is how we ultimately hold powerful people to account. In the face of tyranny, a courageous, lone voice can be far more powerful than a loud, anonymous mob. If you’ve got something to say, and you think it's important that it is said, be prepared to put your name to it. I know that can be difficult, but in doing so, you’ll make it easier for the next person.

Preserving online anonymity means putting liberty first. It means we may need to accept a bit of messiness in exchange for a society where individuals can speak their minds without fear. The job of keeping the internet civil should fall to civil society: platforms setting sensible rules, communities fostering norms of respect, and users taking responsibility for their own choices and words. Government intervention, by contrast, can quickly descend into censorship and tyranny.

If we care about a free and open internet, we should resist knee-jerk calls to ban anonymity and instead address the anti-social behaviour through less coercive means.

The liberty to be anonymous online is worth protecting, not because anonymity is an absolute good, but because the alternatives proposed by the state are far worse.