Presumed Innocent En Ligne [new] -

This paper investigates the following question: To what extent does the principle of presumed innocent apply in online environments, and what normative framework should govern its application? The analysis proceeds in three parts. First, a conceptual overview of the presumption in traditional jurisprudence. Second, a diagnosis of three zones of inversion: platform moderation, digital evidence, and networked vigilantism. Third, a proposal for procedural reforms grounded in "digital due process."

[Generated Academic Author] Course: Jurisprudence & Digital Rights Date: April 14, 2026 presumed innocent en ligne

The principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of modern liberal legal systems. However, the migration of social, commercial, and judicial activities to online platforms (en ligne) has fundamentally destabilized this principle. This paper argues that digital environments—from social media moderation to algorithmic surveillance—systematically invert the presumption of innocence, replacing juridical due process with probabilistic risk management. By examining three distinct online spheres (private platform governance, criminal procedure involving digital evidence, and public discourse), this paper demonstrates that the classical presumption is neither technically nor culturally native to the digital space. It concludes by proposing a hybrid framework of procedural safeguards adapted to network architecture. This paper investigates the following question: To what

The presumption of innocence, formalized in Article 11 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, serves two functions. Functionally, it allocates the burden of proof to the accuser. Symbolically, it expresses the moral priority of avoiding false convictions over punishing the guilty (Blackstone’s ratio). As legal scholar William Blackstone wrote, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Second, a diagnosis of three zones of inversion:

In analog systems, this presumption is enforced through gatekeepers: judges, rules of evidence, cross-examination, and public pronouncement of guilt only after conviction. The key insight is that procedure precedes punishment . No legitimate deprivation of liberty or reputation occurs without a prior adversarial process.