"Innocent Until Proven Guilty"
As most of you probably know, I’ve stepped back from social media. I mostly use it now to share my articles and stuff made by friends, other people I respect, and articles by colleagues at Offside News. I don’t browse social media anymore. Well, microblogging sites, I should specify. I do browse my following feed on Instagram (I also browse YouTube). That’s beside the point, though. So, I’m a bit more out of the loop than I used to be. For transparency, it’s 10:55 pm as I write this on Thursday, April 17, 2025. About 10 minutes ago I learned some allegations or something happened regarding Artemi Panarin. I don’t know any details yet because before I did, I saw a comment in response to my colleague and editor at Offside News, Avery Beaumont, who posted about it. The comment was simple and an all too familiar one when hockey men are accused of crimes or misconduct, “What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty”. Once again, I have no idea what Panarin is accused of. I clicked off and immediately went to Substack to start writing this article when I saw that comment. I will be looking into the allegations. After all, it’s my job to do so. But, this article is not about Panarin. This article is in response to everyone who thinks this is an acceptable response. Because like I said, it’s used every time when a hockey guy is accused of something. Tonight was my breaking point for tolerating this argument.
I try to be professional in this newsletter. So, please forgive me if just this once, I cuss. “What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty” is a bullshit comment made by unserious clowns who have nothing to say and should shut up and refrain from commenting on anything. No, seriously, shame on you. This isn’t a courtroom. “Innocent until proven guilty” ONLY applies to the government and jurors. Also, by default, news organizations, journalists, writers, podcasters, etc. when reporting on it. Now, that doesn’t prevent someone from sharing their opinion if it’s clearly an opinion. But, if you’re reporting on it, you must presume innocence unless you want to get sued for slander or libel.
Now, every time this “argument” (in reality, a silencing tactic) gets used, it’s used in two situations:
Someone merely reported that the allegations were made.
Social media users commenting on how bad it looks for that player.
These are situations where responding with “innocent until proven guilty” proves you to be an unserious clown. I have never even once seen one of the articles that these freaks whine about ever accuse the one being accused of crime/misconduct. It’s always done in a neutral way. Basically, these articles just state what the allegations are and any response to them by the one being accused or fallout from the accusations. “Innocent until proven guilty” isn’t needed for a Katie Strang investigative article because the articles never accuse anyone of misconduct. They merely say, “Hey, this is what someone is being accused of”. There’s no opining on it by Strang or any co-authors. This also applies to others like Rick Westhead or anyone else who ever covers alleged crimes and misconduct. These articles aren’t accusing anyone of anything. I haven’t even read the article yet, but I guarantee that Strang isn’t accusing Panarin of misconduct/crime. She would simply be stating that it happened and what the allegations are. Why? Because the lawyers at The New York Times would never allow her to do anything but. They’d be terrible lawyers if they did. Such articles published by legitimate publications like TSN or The Athletic are vetted by lawyers before publishing. They’re not going to allow Strang to accuse someone of misconduct. So, sorry, “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply here.
Now, as for the second situation, which is random social media commenters commenting saying how bad it looks for the person the allegations are against: it also doesn’t apply. Random Twitter are allowed to share opinions. Just because they have pronouns in their bio and a Jack Hughes avatar and therefore you find them annoying doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to share an opinion. But also, even random Twitter users rarely outright accuse the one the allegations are against. It’s almost always along the lines of, “This is heartbreaking to hear, (insert reasons why)”. They’re not saying he is guilty, they’re saying they’re heartbroken to hear allegations because it emotionally affected them in some way. Even if they show solidarity with the one making allegations, it’s still ok. Once again: it’s not a courtroom. The courtroom of public opinion isn’t bound to the laws of a legal courtroom.
Finally, I want to address the real root of this comment. It’s a silencing tactic. You, the person complaining about people not respecting legal policies that don’t apply to random Twitter users just want to silence people. You don’t want discussions of whatever topic it is. Usually, it’s sexual assault. You don’t want people discussing sexual assault. There are different reasons for this. But, usually, if we’re being honest, it’s because you find it to be “woke” and you don’t like anything that reeks of “feminism”. I’m not going to make further allegations than that, I will leave it there and presume in good faith that you’re not trying to silence people for more devious reasons. After all, I wouldn’t want to assume you’re guilty of something. Anyway, for some reason, people coming forward to talk about their experiences with sexual assault or discussing how to prevent it, or how prevalent it is, etc. I’m sorry, but grow up. Sexual assault is a serious discussion and I don’t care how uncomfortable it makes you. They’re serious discussions that must be had. For some odd reason, though, you have a vested interest in shutting down these discussions. To that, I say, “Fix your heart”. People who have power, like Panarin, don’t need you riding to their rescue. It’s those without power, usually those making the allegations, who do need support, though.
If you found value in this article, please consider paying for a subscription here at Prism Hockey, as subscription money goes to other subscriptions such as DeepL (for translating articles in other languages to cover hockey news around the world) or Google One (necessary for storage for my articles and graphics on social media) to ensure I can continue to cover hockey. If you aren’t able to buy a paid subscription, please consider at least getting a free subscription as all articles are free, and sharing this article. I’d also love to hear your thoughts on this article in the comments below (only paid subscribers can comment) or on social media. I can be found on Bluesky, Mastodon, Threads, and Tumblr.