Blackmail! (1 Viewer)

[mjcouvi]

So every time person A wants 50 dollars..............he can just remind person B of what he knows, and continue repeating the cycle? And the whole deal about "well they could have a contract" is silly......because Person C would somehow magically find out about it (and good luck proving it was A who told him)...........and suddenly the process continues.....likely with A getting a "finder's fee" from C. And later can come D and E....

Some discussions really don't need to be discussions.

I think you're missing that B isn't forced to pay anything. At any point B can just say "screw it" and let A release the embarrassing info and be done with it. Your argument is that B should not even have the legal opportunity to negotiate. The idea that a contract would likely arise from such a situation is not at all silly. If it were legal, of course contracts would arise and be enforceable.

Perhaps it would go as you say and C, D, etc. would attempt to get info from A for a finder's fee, but then A is doing something illegal (assuming a contract between A and B). Additionally, the contract would prevent A from repeating the cycle of blackmail.

It is an interesting discussion.

 

[tomwaits]

So every time person A wants 50 dollars..............he can just remind person B of what he knows, and continue repeating the cycle? And the whole deal about "well they could have a contract" is silly......because Person C would somehow magically find out about it (and good luck proving it was A who told him)...........and suddenly the process continues.....likely with A getting a "finder's fee" from C. And later can come D and E....

Some discussions really don't need to be discussions.

We have all of that now in our legal system. Contract violations have to be proven.
There are private investigators "C" who are paid by "A" to get information on "B".

As long as that information is legally obtained, that can all be done now legally.

 

[superchuck500]

The difference between extortion and blackmail, if I'm not mistaken, is that extortion involves the threat of some illegal activity (burning someone's business down, physical violence, slander, etc.). Blackmail is a threat to do something that would be completely legal notwithstanding the threat (releasing embarrassing photos or other damaging, but true, information).

Definitions can vary, but under the federal statutes, blackmail is attempting to obtain money (or even the act of receiving money) or a thing of value in exchange for not revealing information about criminal activity. Extortion is attempting to money or a thing of value in exchange for not revealing embarrassing or damaging information.

It's pretty easy to see why that form of blackmail is illegal, it basically criminalizes the making income off of information regarding a crime.

Extortion is different, clearly, and I think the answer is one of public-policy. Threatening someone's body or life (with threat of serious injury or death) in exchange for money (or valuables) is clearly illegal and bad stuff: this is the crime of robbery. With extortion, the victim is similarly held up without consent by a demand for money (or valuables) except the threat isn't damage to the body but damage to the reputation. I think the idea is the weaponizing of information against a person to force the person to pay is harmful in our society, not unlike using an actual weapon.

Apparently, the history of extortion is that it was a companion crime to bribery - it was originally only for the attempt to use damaging information against public officials to get the official to do something beneficial to the extortionist. But the crime must have gradually expanded to include private persons as well.

 

[mjcouvi]

Definitions can vary, but under the federal statutes, blackmail is attempting to obtain money (or even the act of receiving money) or a thing of value in exchange for not revealing information about criminal activity. Extortion is attempting to money or a thing of value in exchange for not revealing embarrassing or damaging information.

It's pretty easy to see why that form of blackmail is illegal, it basically criminalizes the making income off of information regarding a crime.

Extortion is different, clearly, and I think the answer is one of public-policy. Threatening someone's body or life (with threat of serious injury or death) in exchange for money (or valuables) is clearly illegal and bad stuff: this is the crime of robbery. With extortion, the victim is similarly held up without consent by a demand for money (or valuables) except the threat isn't damage to the body but damage to the reputation. I think the idea is the weaponizing of information against a person to force the person to pay is harmful in our society, not unlike using an actual weapon.

Apparently, the history of extortion is that it was a companion crime to bribery - it was originally only for the attempt to use damaging information against public officials to get the official to do something beneficial to the extortionist. But the crime must have gradually expanded to include private persons as well.

This says extortion may or may not involve threats of violence: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/extortion.html

Would you say this is accurate?

Extortion: Definition and Overview

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force or threat of violence, property damage, harm to reputation, or unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim.

Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged.

Extortion Statutes

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Imagine a society where blackmail was perfectly legal.

You would have professional blackmailers who would intentionally seek out damaging info on people and convince them to pay up or have the info released.

They would provide a negative value to society. It would be like people who went around with rocks in their hands, and convinced homeowners to pay them or they would smash their windows

 

[Dago]

Oh and..

Love that movie. Tim Curry>>>>>>

And Michael McKean as Mr. Green has one of the greatest cinematic grins in history in that movie.

 

[mjcouvi]

Imagine a society where blackmail was perfectly legal.

You would have professional blackmailers who would intentionally seek out damaging info on people and convince them to pay up or have the info released.

They would provide a negative value to society. It would be like people who went around with rocks in their hands, and convinced homeowners to pay them or they would smash their windows

Threatening to smash windows isn't blackmail.

But, yeah, there would likely be legal "professional blackmailers" and I think that's the best argument against legal blackmail -- it would increase the incentive to find damaging info about others. A counter argument for this is that, with the knowledge that one can be legally blackmailed, one has a greater incentive to avoid doing things that might damage one's own reputation.

 

[tomwaits]

Love that movie. Tim Curry>>>>>>

And Michael McKean as Mr. Green has one of the greatest cinematic grins in history in that movie.

Cop: "Its a fee country"
Wadsworth: "I didn't know it was THAT free"

Clue is my all-time favorite movie.

 

[tomwaits]

Imagine a society where blackmail was perfectly legal.

You would have professional blackmailers who would intentionally seek out damaging info on people and convince them to pay up or have the info released.

They would provide a negative value to society. It would be like people who went around with rocks in their hands, and convinced homeowners to pay them or they would smash their windows

Its not like that at all. Smashing windows is damaging is an attack damaging someone's property through no fault of their own.
Revealing truth about someone is not the same. You can reveal truth about people now and its perfectly legal.

I do agree that people may try to make this a profession, but the person being blackmailed does not have to pay. They can just let the person reveal whatever it is they know which again, is perfectly legal now.

 

[superchuck500]

With extortion, the victim is similarly held up without consent by a demand for money (or valuables) except the threat isn't damage to the body but damage to the reputation.

This says extortion may or may not involve threats of violence: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/extortion.html

Would you say this is accurate?

Those definitions don't quite fit the federal statutes, but it just shows that these definitions can vary. In the federal criminal statutes, blackmail is when you seek to benefit from information you have that the other person committed a crime. "I'm going to tell the FBI unless you pay me $50,000". Extortion is damage to the reputation (in public).

 

[LonghornSaint]

But it would be perfectly legal for them to release that information that costs you your job if they didn't try to blackmail you.
Are you saying that should be illegal? People can't tell truth about someone if it can be damaging to that persons life?

No, but that's different. Utilizing a reputational threat for personal gain (it doesn't matter if it's for money, sex, job promotion, etc...) and REGARDLESS if the threat is based on truth or not, should be illegal.

Also, there are plenty of legit personal issues (that an individual might choose not to disclose) that could be monetized, not just criminal activity. What if someone threatened to tell your health insurance provider you are a smoker, or consume too much alcohol and are at risky for liver disease (regardless if it's true), or your fiance how much debt you have, or your parents/family about your closet sexual preference?

 

[Cage1]

Because as a society, we don't want to incentivize misconduct. It would only encourage negative behavior and have more people out there trying to ruin lives.

 

[LonghornSaint]

The difference between extortion and blackmail, if I'm not mistaken, is that extortion involves the threat of some illegal activity (burning someone's business down, physical violence, slander, etc.). Blackmail is a threat to do something that would be completely legal notwithstanding the threat (releasing embarrassing photos or other damaging, but true, information).

Yet they both involve threat and coercion for personal gain at someone else's expense. Technically, being held up at gunpoint (but the gun hasn't been fired yet) is threat (of a possible but yet unknown future outcome) with coercion (the fear of getting shot). Technically, the robbee can decide not to cooperate, and gamble that the robber will choose NOT to fire and become a murderer when they don't get what they want. So, should that be legal? Maybe this is not a great example, but technically since we are splitting hairs...

 

[jboss]

Yes it was a podcast with Walter Block as the guest.

Ah, ok this thread is starting to make a lot more sense. Big Libertarian Energy in this one lol.

 

[tomwaits]

Because as a society, we don't want to incentivize misconduct. It would only encourage negative behavior and have more people out there trying to ruin lives.

I don't think its incenvtivizing misconduct. Look at examples above in A telling B's insurance company that B is a smoker. The misconduct is that B lied to his insurance company about it, not that A is revealing the truth. Its not the same as being held at gunpoint either. Being held at gunpoint would be A threatening B with violence through the gun. A telling truth about B may cause B damage, but its damage caused by what B did, not by A.

As mjcouvi stated earlier it can actually disincentivize misconduct if you knew that you could be blackmailed for your misconduct.

I still think its not a good thing to blackmail people, and I would not recommend it, but I don't think the legal arguments against it as defined as requesting money to not reveal a truth that was legally obtained are flimsy.

Never confuse legal with moral.