Accountability & Transparency

Publisher Anonymity Statement

The publisher's identity is withheld for personal safety. This project maintains an accessible complaints process, responds to valid legal process, and bases published claims on identified public records.

Corrections & Complaints Procedure

How to Lodge a Correction or Complaint

If you believe there is an error, misrepresentation, or other issue with published material, we welcome your feedback.

1. Submit via contact form: Use the Contact form and select "Corrections & takedown requests" as your enquiry type.
2. Be specific: Include the URL of the affected page, the specific text or claim in question, and details of why you believe a correction is needed.
3. Provide evidence: Supporting documentation (primary sources, court judgments, official records) strengthens your request.

Our Response Timeline

We acknowledge receipt of all correction requests within 5 business days. This is a volunteer-run project, and response times may vary. We will:

• Review your submission against our editorial standards (see below)
• Verify claims against source material
• If a correction is warranted, update the affected page and publish a correction notice
• If we believe our material is accurate, explain our reasoning and offer you a right of reply

Right of Reply

Any individual or organisation named or substantially featured in published material has the right to a reply to appear alongside that material, where appropriate.

• Right of reply text must be factual and not inflammatory
• We will publish responses that comply with these principles prominently (e.g., in a dedicated section below the relevant article or case study)
• If your reply is rejected, we will explain our reasoning

Content Removal Criteria

We may remove or substantially modify published material if:

• A court order or lawful legal process requires removal
• Material contains unverified allegations published in violation of our editorial standards (see below)
• Material is demonstrably false and we cannot correct it with available evidence
• Material is sourced from a public record that has been officially superseded or retracted

Escalation

If you are not satisfied with our initial response, you may escalate your complaint by emailing the project contact. Escalated complaints will be reviewed by a different team member where possible.

Editorial Standards

LEGAL, NOT JUST. publishes material based on the following principles:

Findings-Based Reporting

All published claims are grounded in identified public records—court judgments, Royal Commission reports, statutory findings, official data, or peer-reviewed research. We do not publish unverified community allegations.

Primary Sources

Where practicable, we link to primary sources (legislation, court decisions, official reports). Secondary analysis is clearly labelled as such.

Neutral Language

We aim for evidence-based language. We avoid inflammatory rhetoric, speculation, and unsubstantiated claims, even when discussing systemic failures.

Pre-Moderation Policy

User-submitted stories (via "Your Story" section) undergo editorial review before publication. We apply the same editorial standards: stories must be based on the submitter's direct experience, must not contain unverified allegations about third parties, and must not be defamatory or inflammatory.

For information on legal requests received and how we handle them, see our Transparency page.