All decisions to remove content should be in accordance with the principles of the ABC’s statutory and editorial independence and be in accordance with ABC Editorial Policies and relevant laws.
Decisions to remove online content are editorial decisions. Authority to remove content rests with the content division editorially responsible for the content, which may differ from the division responsible for the publishing platform.
It is always preferable to correct, clarify or update content rather than removing it.
When content is temporarily removed, the ABC aims to republish it as soon as possible.
Decisions to remove content permanently are more significant than decisions to do so temporarily.
Receipt of a complaint or legal threat is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for removing content. We do not remove content pending the investigation of complaints, other than in exceptional circumstances.
Decisions to remove offensive content should be based on careful application of the harm and offence policy. When determining whether the editorial context justifies the level of offence, relevant considerations may include public interest, freedom of speech, freedom of artistic expression, and the historical importance of the content.
Any decision to remove content must be upwardly referred. Each division can choose its own internal protocols but the expectation is that decisions will be made at an appropriately senior level and in consultation with an Editorial Policies advisor. The most significant decisions must be referred to the relevant Divisional Director.
the distress caused to the subject of the story through continued publication of the facts;
the desire to “move on” and put any record of the event behind them;
the impact on family, friends and acquaintances;
the impact on professional reputation and employability;
threats, insults or reputational damage caused by the continued publication of the facts;
general embarrassment or discomfort at the continued publication of the material.
1.People voluntarily participated in content but wish to be removed because continued publication is causing harm or distress. The usual solution will be to amend the content to remove or anonymise them. See below, ‘Other circumstances where non-material details may be removed’.
2.The content contains allegations or evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an individual or organisation, but ultimately there was no conviction or other finding against them. The usual solution will be to update the content to indicate the outcome of proceedings or investigations.
3.The content is old (generally at least ten years), it reports on a relatively minor offence and does not involve sexual assault, child abuse or fraud, there is little or no ongoing public interest in the matter, and the person can demonstrate that continuing publication is causing genuine harm. These cases are very rare.
A public figure*. We would normally decline to consider removing references to public figures.
Arrested, charged or convicted of another offence before or since.
Notorious in some other way, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
An alleged or proven sex offender.
In a position of trust in the community*.
Adversely named in a commission of inquiry or similar.
A public figure is any person who has been considered significantly newsworthy in any other context.
A position of trust would include people currently acting in senior public office, the judiciary, law enforcement, teaching, supervision of children, financial advice or similar.
The information to be removed is genuinely immaterial to any reasonable understanding of the content; and
Its continued publication in its current form is causing genuine harm.