Blackmail paradox
Oct. 14th, 2005 05:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackHmmm. I don't regret not doing law, whatever online tests say. The consensus seems to be there are some parts I'd find very interesting, the jurisprudence, the constructing arguments and playing nomic with the law, but most of it I'd hate.
But every so often I come across something and go 'hmmm', I should have covered that in a lecture somewhere. Witness the response to my factual and moral truths musings.
Today, I ended up reading about blackmail[1]. Why is it illegal? Obviously if you're threatening an illegal act it should be, but showing pictures of a neighbour leaving a lover's house of to their spouse is legal, and receiving gifts from them is legal, but both together aren't. Though *them* proposing to pay *you* not to still is.
It's illegal because lots of bad things would happen if it isn't. It would encourage lots of snooping, stealing to pay blackmailers, etc.
But apparently there is no good test for *what* threats constitute blackmail. Publishing information? Too restrictive. Any threat? Too broad: that would cover hard bargaining.
Can anyone propose a better?
There are other common examples of laws where the harm is hard to define, that "libertarians" would like to abolish, and are problematic in inexactitude, but are probably necessary. Prostitution. Ticket scalping. Telling lies on TV. (OK, that isn't, but shouldn't it be?)
[1] Or extortion. Used here in the sense of "threatening to X unless you do Y" where X may or may not be legal, and may or may not be an inaction, and Y may or may not be giving money.
But every so often I come across something and go 'hmmm', I should have covered that in a lecture somewhere. Witness the response to my factual and moral truths musings.
Today, I ended up reading about blackmail[1]. Why is it illegal? Obviously if you're threatening an illegal act it should be, but showing pictures of a neighbour leaving a lover's house of to their spouse is legal, and receiving gifts from them is legal, but both together aren't. Though *them* proposing to pay *you* not to still is.
It's illegal because lots of bad things would happen if it isn't. It would encourage lots of snooping, stealing to pay blackmailers, etc.
But apparently there is no good test for *what* threats constitute blackmail. Publishing information? Too restrictive. Any threat? Too broad: that would cover hard bargaining.
Can anyone propose a better?
There are other common examples of laws where the harm is hard to define, that "libertarians" would like to abolish, and are problematic in inexactitude, but are probably necessary. Prostitution. Ticket scalping. Telling lies on TV. (OK, that isn't, but shouldn't it be?)
[1] Or extortion. Used here in the sense of "threatening to X unless you do Y" where X may or may not be legal, and may or may not be an inaction, and Y may or may not be giving money.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 04:24 pm (UTC)There can clearly be extortion that isn't blackmail ("ten grand or Guido comes round with the baseball bat"). I don't think there can be blackmail that isn't extortion. So first define extortion and then think about what makes a particular kind of extortion blackmail or not.
A transaction that you're a willing participant in isn't extortion (err, unless you're doing the extortion, obviously). Another view might be that a transaction in which you don't get any benefit is extortion. Both of these get uncomfortably close to including taxation (certainly not everyone is willing to pay tax, even if I personally am...) but I don't want to say that if the state does it it's not extortion because that is the thin end of the state being by definition unable to commit crimes, and states can certainly commit crimes against their citizens.
However I'm not sure these worries apply to the blackmail case: the threat states use are fines and imprisonment, not shopping you to your wife. Or we could just assume that solving it is another conversation.
So - extortion in which the threat is to publish or reveal something?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 04:54 pm (UTC)Whether threatening-to-reveal should be legal is a good question, but seems amenable to definition.
What other threats are legal is the difficult question. "Willing" could work, but definitely requires case-by-case judgement. You're generally trying to define a base state deviation from which is an unreasonable threat. Not publishing photos is a default. Granting a tender to the best bidder is a default. But it's very subjective.