35. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to regard the person who initiates the proceedings as having accepted the normal incidence of the public nature of proceedings: Ex parte Kaim Todner, at P 978D/E-G. . 36. Tenth, where restriction on open justice is justified, it may take many forms, depending on how all pertinent interests, rights and freedoms should best be balanced. For instance, in the present case, the applicant asks for a blanket order for the hearing to be held in camera. Alternatively, it asks for a partial censor of the contents of the submissions to be ventilated in open court. Sometimes , a court may impose reporting restrictions on proceedings held in public. At other times, the court may simply restrict the identification of the parties involved in the proceedinss: In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] 2 AC 697; Re BU." (emphasis added) B3. Analysis 22. The Board finds the above line of authorities which gave guidance of the relevant considerations applicable to the present application of the Appellant useful. The Board applies the above considerations in the exercise of the discretion. 23. The restriction in the anonymity order sought by the Appellant concerns his name and particulars which will reveal his identity. Such information is exactly the subject matters of his pursuit and objective in his request to Google LLC and complaint to the Respondent, and finally in the 21