this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
23 points (100.0% liked)
Hockey
2432 readers
1 users here now
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
List of Team-Specific Communities:
Metropolitan Division
- Carolina Hurricanes
- Washington Capitals
- Columbus Blue Jackets
- New Jersey Devils
- New York Islanders
- New York Rangers
- Pittsburgh Penguins
- Philadelphia Flyers
Atlantic Division
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Montreal Canadiens
- Boston Bruins
- Ottawa Senators
- Tampa Bay Lightning
- Buffalo Sabres
- Detroit Red Wings
- Florida Panthers
Central Division
- Chicago Blackhawks
- Winnipeg Jets
- Nashville Predators
- Arizona Coyotes
- Dallas Stars
- St Louis Blues
- Minnesota Wild
- Colorado Avalanche
Pacific Division
- Los Angeles Kings
- Edmonton Oilers
- Calgary Flames
- Anaheim Ducks
- Vancouver Canucks
- San Jose Sharks
- Vegas Golden Knights
- Seattle Kraken
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
US requires malice to be proven in a defamation case, however truth is still an absolute defense in either country. Suspending a player because they were part of an investigation or charged with sexual assault could still be problematic in either case, especially if not convicted.
That would depend on the provisions for such in the collective bargaining agreement, would it not? I'd imagine there's at least one clause that allows for suspensions tied to bringing bad PR for the League and/or the game of hockey. That said, if the NHL is going to suspend players, I'd like for them to get it right and not have it turn into a shitshow of "can they or can they not do this".
There likely is a clause, but you don't want to be wrong in that clause. You really need the evidence public to do anything major, look at the Ray Rice case from the NFL. It was a minor suspension until the video was released, then when it wasn't really debatable the big suspension hit. If the NHL acts too aggressively they open themselves to potential liability if the players they suspend weren't actually involved, you want evidence a jury can't ignore first.
Touché.