- Should blackmail be illegal?
- Everything you never realized you wanted to know about pasta, and hence didn't ask.
- The White House is worried about the deficits it's running, though not enough to do anything about them yet.
- Pet costumes
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
As George Carlin once said about prostitution; "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
There seems to be an only slightly stronger argument for making prostituion illegal than blackmail (spread of STDs and it creates a public nusiance.) Though both might potentially be regulated for.
Or as Rod Blagojevich once said: "Selling is legal. Appointing senators is legal. Why isn't selling apointing senators legal?"
*laughs* Of course, in that case the issue is conflict of interest. The seat isn't supposed to be Blagojevich's to sell. He's supposed to be representing 'the people.'
Maybe blackmail should be legal. But the arguments in the article were absurdly weak. We have laws against certain sorts of businesses that we think we be detrimental to society - terrorist training camps, nuclear arms manufacturing, virtual child pornography, old tire burning companies, companies that bury your toxic waste on their property, etc., etc. And here's a business that is detrimental to society: blackmail.
Maybe you think blackmail is different than the rest of these. To argue that blackmail should be legal you need to state or argue for some principle about when it is permissible to outlaw something, and show that blackmail doesn't fall under that principle. If the argument is supposed to be: it is permissible to outlaw something only if that thing involves something else that is illegal, then well, that is a bad principle. That's not why murder is illegal, for example. But that seems to be the main argument that is given in the article. Offhand, I can't see the difference between those articles and saying "It's legal for me to shoot a gun, and it's legal for me to stand behind you, therefore it should be legal for me to shoot a gun with you standing in front of me." Huh?
Maybe the principle is that it is only permissible to outlaw things that violate people's negative rights. That's relatively plausible. But then we need an argument that we do not have a right not to be blackmailed. But it looks like we've moved in a pretty small circle: that is, more or less, what we started out looking for. Certainly there was nothing in the article resembling an argument that there is no negative right not to be blackmailed. And I would assume that most of the people interviewed in the article would find this principle too restrictive in any case.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
What's "detrimental to society" about blackmail? (Bracketing the question of whether society should even be considered an actor or entity, and whether mere detriment to "society" in some fashion suffices as justification for a ban on action - I'm not sure I can think of any right that can't be cast as "detrimental to society" with some plausibility.)
(For that matter, what's detrimental about nuclear arms manufacturing?
Say, if it keeps a Communist conqueror from rolling a hundred tank divisions through the Fulda Gap and enslaving Europe?
I'm not at all sure that virtual child pornography is a harm to "society" either, repulsive as it is. Real child pornography is undoubtedly harmful (and justly banned) ... but not to "society" - to the children involved in its production.)
What's "detrimental to society" about blackmail?
Easy. Perverse incentives to witnesses to crimes.
You see (for example) an adult having a sexual affair with a 16 year old. You can:
1. Ignore it. The 16 year old appears to enjoy it, what's the harm?
2. Notify the authorities
3. Snap some photos and demand $10 000 or you will release them.
Clearly, society would prefer you choose number 2. With blackmail not being a crime, more people would choose 3 (or at least, more people than at present).
If those in the animal kingdom ever achieve domain over humanity, there will be consequences.
Yup. Very not cool about the deficit. By 2030 or 2040 we should have a handle on it.
If hedging and leveraging could run up somewhere around %50 trillion in liabilities, why can't the US treasury?
Derek
John 4,
We have laws against certain sorts of businesses that we think we be detrimental to society - terrorist training camps, nuclear arms manufacturing, virtual child pornography, old tire burning companies, companies that bury your toxic waste on their property, etc., etc.
As I understand it, one has a well defined constitutional right to publish as much derogatory information about anyone as long as it is true. (Obviously, if it's false you can be charged with slander or libel.) Now, constitutional rights are not absolute, in cases like Schenck v. United States and later in Brandenburg v. Ohio the court has set a pretty high standard for when the right of free speech can be limited.
So, while it is clear the state has the right and indeed the obligation to prosecute people for yelling fire in a crowded theater, I don't see the the state as having a compelling need to preventing some guy from shaking down a celebrity by threatening ti revel the fact that said celebrity is a philanderer.
Yes, but I'm not sure what kind of argument that is, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I't is legal for me to spank my son, but does that mean it should be legal for me to sell tickets for people to watch me do it? I don't mean to be difficult but I want to see an clearly laid out argument for why blackmail should be legal. As I said in the above post, the only way I can think of for arguing about such questions is to (1) debate principles about what it is legitimate for the government to outlaw, and (2) debate about whether one has a natural right not to be blackmailed. The second question is hard to get much traction on, so...what's your principle?
I don't see the the state as having a compelling need to preventing some guy from shaking down a celebrity by threatening ti revel the fact that said celebrity is a philanderer.
That's my argument. The state has a compelling need to prevent you from selling tickets to watch your son get spanked. It does not have a compelling need, in my estimation, to prevent the shakedown of philandering celebrities.
John,
I'll give you another example.
If I'm a research scientist and I find conclusive proof that Acme Diet Cola causes cancer - should I have the right to shake down Acme Bottling Corp. to the tune of $100 million? I would say no, the compelling need to alert the public to the dangers of Diet Cola outweighs your constitutional right to control and profit from your speech.
In the case of David Letterman I don't think needs of society are sufficient to warrant the limiting of the right to free speech.
jmo3 - I'd draw this distinction; if you blackmail someone with knowledge of a crime or an action which might incur civil liability you become an accomplice to the act and liable yourself. Otherwise, it shouldn't matter.
What if Letterman had known this person was about to reveal this information to the press and offered to buy his silence?
In general, do people think it ok to buy the silence of other people when the underlying acts are not illegal but only embarrassing?
In general, do people think it ok to buy the silence of other people when the underlying acts are not illegal but only embarrassing?
Yes, I think the burden of proof should be on the state to prove that society has a compelling interest in the damaging information being released. If society doesn't have a compelling need for that information one should be free to contract for the disclosure or non-disclosure of that information as one sees fit.
For example if you had pictures of Tom Cruise having sex with his pool boy, it would be safe to assume society has no need to compel the release of that information. In such cases one should be free to discreetly approach Mr. Cruise and The Inquirer to see who is willing to bid more for the pictures.
Yes. If the acts aren't illegal (or wouldn't incur civil liabilities) then why not? The only reason that I can think of is that it's an attempt to protect the potential victim of blackmail, in the same way that you don't negotiate with terrorists because that encourages more terrorism. Legalizing blackmail would incent people to snoop on celebrities and then try to blackmail them. It would further encourage violations of privacy that most people take for granted. But I don't see blackmail itself as actually harming society.
I do have a legal question.
Many of the tabloids: The Inquierer, TMZ, Perez Hilton etc. are willing to pay for stories. Now, if I was Mr. Halderman and I sent out feelers to the tabloids, as well as World Wide Pants(Leterman's production company), indicating that I was willing to sell a story "potentially damaging to a certain late night celebrity" and World Wide Pants was the highest bidder, that wouldn't be blackmail, now would it? Once I told the story to WWP it would be up to them to determine if the story was worth releasing, right?
Blackmail is a form of extortion. Instead of threatening to burn down the victim's business, the blackmailer threatens to reveal information.
Whether the information is incriminating or not, I think we want to discourage extortion.
You have that backwards.
Extortion is a form of blackmail.
It is a form that specifically involves coercion - usually violence.
Threatening to release true information about someone is not coercion no matter how embarrassing that information may be.
law.com: extortion
law.com: blackmailThe dictionary definitions agree with the legal definition.
Merriam Webster: extorting
Merriam Webster: blackmail
Instead of threatening to burn down the victim's business, the blackmailer threatens to reveal information.
Yes, but burning down someone's house isn't a constitutional right. Free speech is such a right and the burden of proof should be on the state to prove harm to society.
Do you really think shaking down slutty celebrities warrants a limit on free speech?
Two links Our Fair Hostess (and other ladies) might be interested in:
Schrodinger's Rapist:
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
How not to be that guy:
http://synecdochic.livejournal.com/214607.html
Lady I know posted those to her online diary.
Guess none of the anti-blackmail people were willing to answer up, so I will ask explicitly:
What is the difference between Letterman offering to buy the silence of Haldeman, and Haldeman offering to sell his silence?
This is quite similar to jmo's question above.
It looks like you're arguing that there is no morally relevant difference between the two. That may be so. But of course we don't just outlaw morally objectionable behavior. Many morally permissible things are outlawed, like "stealing" back from people who don't legitimately own the "possessions" in question. We have such laws because it is good for society to have them.
Maybe your question is why it makes sense to outlaw one and not the other. The first and most important part of the answer to that question is that legalized blackmail would have a serious detrimental effect on society. If you think that is false please say why. Allowing the blackmailer to initiate the business transaction has this very important effect: it creates a market for blackmail. Practical rationality would dictate hiring PIs to find dirt on wealthy people and then blackmailing them. But if blackmail is illegal I can't do this. I can get dirt on wealthy people and hope they notice my intention to make that information public and hope they offer to buy me off. But that is simply not the same sort of incentive.
It cuts to question of what harm Letterman suffered. Think about it.
Here is a follow up. Suppose blackmailing is legal. 2 people make a contract that one party keeps their silence, the other pays up. This contract must obviously be enforceable to prevent the first party from coming back and demanding more money. So the government (or the courts, specifically) will have to enforce blackmailing contracts.
Yancey,
Don't many civil cases, that get settled out of court, include a stipulation that in exchange for the settlement one must agree never to discuss the case? So, Dr. Smith amputates the wrong foot. Before you even contact a lawer, he and his insurance company agree to pay you $2,000,000 provided you sign a confidentiality agreement.
If I say Dr. Smith pay me $2,000,000 or I sue and tell everyone what youd did, is that blackmail?
Does it all hinge on who does the asking?
In your instance the doctor injured you.
As I understand it Letterman didn't injure Halderman.
Your example is more comparable to Dave Carroll's dispute with United Airlines.
It seems The Atlantic won't let me embed YouTube videos
BobW,
So, if I have an affair with Eliot Spitzer and he dumps me and I threaten to reveal the affiar unless he pays me $2,000,000 that isn't blackmail? After all, I am the spurned lover i.e. the injured party.
Just take it back to the Letterman story. Say, instead of trying to get money from him, you try to get it from a tabloid. Now, Mr. Letterman may not like that. He may even want to give you money to ensure that you don't sell to the tabloid, and I believe it's legal for him to do so. So what if you were to ask, just so he'd know beforehand, if he did, in fact, want to pay that money?
Now you're a felon, for having the consideration to ask if he wanted to bid on the rights.
I think an affair with Eliot Spitzer should count as self abuse.
Trying to get two million dollars out of embarrasing him would be blackmail. If you just want revenge call the tabloids. Sell them your story.
Another legal question:
I'm a 19yo Senate intern and I end up having an affair with Jay Rockerfeller. As part of his seduction he claims that he is so in love with me he is going to leave his wife and marry me. This turns out to be a lie.
Would it be blackmail to treaten to sue for breech of contract, but note that I would be willing to settle out of court and sign a non-disclosure agreement?
I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.
I remember dictionary definitions pretty well.
Bob,
Since we're really arguing about what the law should be, rather than what it is - should the intern be able to threaten to sue, but be willing to settle out of court?
Is 'breach of promise' still grounds for a lawsuit?
What is the remedy? Should the losing defendant be forced to divorce and marry the plaintif?
How would the plaintif prove damage?
If the intern threatens to sue and asks for money, that would be blackmail.
If the intern sues, asking the court to seal all the details in advance, that would smack of the same. I suspect the judge would smell a rat.
If the intern sues publicly the cat is out of the bag.
What is the remedy?
Cash of course.
Is 'breach of promise' still grounds for a lawsuit?
It's not "breach of promise" it's breach of contract. A contract is still a contract even if it isn't written down. The only difference is it's harder to prove the existence of a verbal contract. But, assuming sufficient proof of a verbal contract exosted, I don't see why the suit wouldn't be valid.
The first and most important part of the answer to that question is that legalized blackmail would have a serious detrimental effect on society. If you think that is false please say why.
I think it would have a beneficial effect on society, as it would encourage people to stay out of trouble, stay faithful to their marriage vows, etc.
You could never outlive your youth.
Do you have nothing embarassing about your past?
Law enforcement and other government officials are in a great position to collect embarassing information, even without accessing restricted databases and the like. Would you have a special rule for them? Define "government official". Define "restricted". Try to tell nobody would try to cash in.
This is one hard and fast rule I favor. No extortion.
Would you have a special rule for them?
Of course! If your Doctor found out you had an STD could he threaten you? Obviously not. If a cop caught you with child porn could he shake you down? Again, no.
But, slutty celebrities? I just can't see a compelling need to keep them from being shaken down.
So, you want a special rule for slutty (or in this case rutty) celebrities. How about the rest of us?
I repeat. Do you have nothing embarassing in your past?
Nothing illegal, nothing that would keep you from accepting an appointment in the Obama administration, rather, something you don't really want your spouse's nose rubbed in?
Is there nothing that could be misinterpreted, perhaps on purpose? Are there no possible plausible lies?
It's a can of worms I don't think we want opened.
No doubt there would be the beneficial effect you mention. The question, however, is whether there wouldn't be a greater harmful effect. In any case, as people have pointed out, making blackmail legal raises all sorts of odd questions. Even at a practical level I think it would be a nightmare. Let's say I pay you a one time sum of $5 million to keep a secret. Ten years later you've spent it all and are living on the brink so you sell my secret to a tabloid for $500. Do I get my money back? How? From whom? What if you tell your spouse my secret, and they tell their sibling, and their sibling tells their spouse, and they tell their best friend who then blackmails me as well. How is the government going to make sure that doesn't happen?
Do you know of any societies where blackmail is not illegal? Again, my initial claim wasn't that blackmail should be illegal, just that I haven't seen any argument that would make me think it should be legal - the arguments in the linked article were not to the point.
Mmmm. Veggie soup (chicken stock base) with rotini for dinner tonight. Perfect for a cold raw day like this.
Letterman makes a really bad case for blackmail since you run into a 'beggars and bridges' problem but in reverse. Blackmail doesn't depend on the information being true, only on it being plausible and difficult to refute. If there were no blackmail laws, anyone could claim they were going to make a false but damaging accusations against you and demand payment. You would then have no recourse other than to attempt to prove a negative, either to the people that they told (and how could you know who they were contacting with the false information?) or in court. Blackmail laws recognize that a person willing to engage in extortion is also likely to use false information in the attempt.
"Blackmail laws recognize that a person willing to engage in extortion is also likely to use false information in the attempt."
Simple remedy. Make "truth is a defense" for blackmailers as for libelers.
Dear Friend,
You may not know me and you are probably surprised to be receiving this letter from me, but it is very important that you read this.
Some five to ten (5 to 10) years ago, you were involved in a very embarrassing affair with a person who was not your spouse at the time. My father who was the Nigerian Minister of Intelligence received reports of your behavior including photographs and video footage. As you were not of interest to the Nigerian government your files were stored.
Since then my father has died and left me all his files. Because of the continuing economic troubles in my country I am left with no recourse except to ask you for twenty thousand dollars ($20 000) as a one time payment. Otherwise I will be forced to release your file to your family and employer.
Mabutu, Nigeria
Good one. My point exactly.
Megan, have you been following the debate on how Kiva has mislead donors? Interested in your thoughts...
http://www.philanthropyaction.com/nc/a_mostly_comprehensive_guide_to_the_kiva_and_donor_illusion_debate/