Skip to comments.The Blackmail Paradox
Posted on 03/08/2014 8:42:37 AM PST by InvisibleChurch
Its legal for me to expose your infidelity.
And its legal for me to seek $10,000 from you in a business transaction.
So why is it illegal for me to blackmail you for $10,000?
Most crimes do not need theories to explain why the behavior is criminal, writes Northwestern law professor James Lindgren. The wrongdoing is self-evident. But blackmail is unique among major crimes: no one has yet figured out why it ought to be illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at futilitycloset.com ...
Interesting, but my first thought would be that assisting in a cover up for financial gain make you a party to the fraud (or whatever the case in question is).
Ah, the Chicago way...
For any number of reasons. In liberal-speak, it's an invasion of privacy...
In reality, it's either theft, an accessory after the fact to a crime, or a bribe to continue on doing illegal acts.
I would throw in indentured servitude as well, such as in the case of pols/bureaucrats acting against their constituencies.
There are many more reasons, of course.
Because the people who make laws tend to have secrets?
“So why is it illegal for me to blackmail you for $10,000? “
Contracts are to be entered into freely and not under coercion. In blackmail, coercion prevents a free contract.
But we really shouldn’t call it “blackmail” - that is stereotype of blacks. Perhaps greymail.
That’s all? Looks like some kind of hoax. A bona fide law professor would give reasons and explanations for what on the face of it seems to be a fairly goofy thing to say.
I find it amazing (maybe I shouldn’t) that such a simple concept is apparently beyond the grasp of a law professor.
I’ve always preferred “Extortion.”
Forcing an individual to give you money by use of a threat is theft, so is blackmail -— unless you are the government.
I had an idea for a movie.
The idea is to have some group that has access to NSA data etc. They use this info to blackmail someone, not for money but to blackmail someone else. The second target is blackmailed by the first, again not for money directly, but for new legislation or regulations that would benefit the small group.
I am thinking the first target is a lobbyist, the second target a powerful Senator that deals with CIA or Defense funding. Funding that is rarely questioned or scrutinized, but is in the billions.
Blackmail it’s how one gets elected or not.
Is it blackmail if the exposure is planned without profit, but a price is offered for silence?
It is not blackmail when a lawyer signs the letter. “Give us a gazillion bucks or we will sue you for two gazillion!”
The “harm” is legal, hence the paradox.
Should exposure of embarrassing truth, devoid of profit thereby, be illegal?
extortion is the perfect term. The blackmailer is never done. Once they can use their information as leverage once, they can use it again and again. They now own the other person.
Lawyers write blackmail contracts all the time. They are called “Non-disclosure agreements”.
And what is the penalty when members of a political party pressure a candidate to “step aside” because of incriminating details they have in a folder/file?
NEVER are the parties prosecuted for blackmail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.