In a word: coercion. It’s not unclear if you consider that coercion is wrong. It’s only made unclear because our legal system authorizes various forms of coercion from taxes to selective service. Blackmail is an overt case of coercion, while bribing someone to keep a secret is offering a payment for a service: they are perfectly free to turn you down.
2 Likes
“Why is bribery legal but blackmail not?”
Because bribery is the basis of the lobbying system in Washington. That´s why.
In other countries being given money, or expensive presents, from a interested party to change the outcome of a decision constitutes a crime both for the politician and the party.
2 Likes
I guess it’s a threat, because you’re threatening to do something that will have negative consequences for the victim (ie making information about them public leading to embarrassment or worse).
The bit I can’t articulate is why just releasing the information is not illegal. Obviously in some cases it can be, eg releasing information obtained illegally, or releasing information you have obtained professionally (eg a doctor telling the world about your ‘little condition’). I’m sure we can think of a few more cases
On the other hand, some information, such as someone having an affair, is legal to spread around (depending on how you found out), but it would be illegal to blackmail someone over that information. I guess in some countries you could bring some kind of civil case, but I don’t know nearly enough about that to comment.
There are definitely situations though, where it would be perfectly legal to reveal information (A is having an affair with B), and it would be legal to accept money from someone not to reveal it, but it would be illegal to ask for money.
I’m also not sure what would happen if you took money from someone not to talk, but spilled your guts anyway after taking the money.
1 Like
one word: Consent. in a business transaction you consent to the transaction going ahead. and you can cancel the transaction later (refund) if you feel the terms were violated. even if the transaction is one way, ie where a service is provided, you can still claim compensation. in blackmail you are extorted. money is exctracted by force majeur, without your full consent. it is not a business transaction. it is theft.
also I object to people using this as a jumping off point for their own personal agenda
Ashen Victor and ianloic, there is a world outside the USA, there are reasons outside of washington, bad things happen that are not part of the military-industrial complex. Boundegar, this discussion is not a shibboleth for gamergate. Mathew, you don’t understand the concept of threat. try ‘threaten to force feed you an apple’
Old and Kmoser - thank god there’s someone here who can reason.
dumb article from normally sensible site. i am not angry boingboing, i’m just disappointed
Guess I’m one of the dumb ones, because force feeding someone an apple against their will is illegal. Giving them an apple isn’t. Telling their secrets isn’t either. Your analogy doesn’t apply in this case.
Not trying to be a dick, just would like a more reasoned explanation/discussion than the condescending dismissiveness and vitriol this thread has been full of.
1 Like
I get what you are saying.
I don’t think anyone in this thread is saying that simply because revealing a fact is legal, and asking for money is legal, it should be fine to blackmail people. I think everyone here can agree blackmailing is not ethically or morally right. Whether or not it is (should be) legal or illegal is a different question.
A similar situation occurs with pan handling. This is illegal in many places, it is however legal to ask for donations for a good cause, ask money for (mostly) worthless products, ask a friend to spot you for dinner this one time, etc.
It depends on the information, but usually the easy answer to why releasing information isn’t illegal is free speech. If it’s true and not defamation/slander/libel, it’s usually going to be legal to disseminate it, even if it was obtained illegally, but just not by you initially.
A caveat to the “threatening to do something that will have negative consequences for the ‘victim’” perspective is that there are legal ways to do that very thing. You can threaten to sue the person in civil court and include in your filing claims that reveal negative information about the person unless they otherwise “settle” and pay you money. That’s essentially legal blackmail. Even if they would ultimately fail in court, you’d still have to pay for a lawyer or spend your time filing motions on your behalf, so you end up paying either way and the embarrassing information is still revealed.
1 Like
What I personally believe is moral is completely irrelevant. This is a discussion about what’s legal. There are a great many legal things that I do not consider moral and would not do. So can you quit the bullshit ad hominem attacks, stop trying to distract attention, and just explain, clearly and logically, why the legal system considers blackmail to be wrong?
You said it was only paradoxical to someone who doesn’t understand the concept of threat. Well, I thought I understood the concept of threat, but on reflection it seems odd to me that it’s a crime to threaten to do something that’s completely legal. So according to you, I must not really understand the legal concept of threat correctly. So, please explain it to me.
2 Likes
Actually, that’s a good point — the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act even has a clue in the name. (It’s only corrupt when foreign people do it.)
Still, I don’t think that’s the explanation that others were claiming to have.
Arguents that show how blackmail is a form of assault (a threat) or a type of coercion are interesting, but are not the reason blackmail is illegal.
Blackmail is illegal… because legislators passed laws that made it a crime.
It really is that simple. The entire point of having legislators is that they get to make such decisions. Blackmail was a problem in the past, so legislators passed laws that try to fix that type of problem.
This seems likek a paradox to some people because they are incorrectly assuming that the law has to be based on logic and be internally consistent. We don’t create laws with some sort of logical deduction or proof; laws exist because we say they exist, by definition. We even get to change the law our opinions about blackmail changed for some reason.
1 Like
Finally, an answer that makes complete sense, actually deals with the question, and isn’t dismissive or tangential to the point.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
