Why is blackmail illegal?

[PunkinA]

In light of David Letterman and his recent ordeal, I've come to wonder about blackmail in general. I think I am misunderstanding something about the nature of extortion law.

If I have done something that would compromise my reputation, and someone else gains access to that information legally, why isn't that person allowed to profit from that information.

It seems that the person with the information could legally sell his information to a media market, is it then illegal to come back to me and offer to sell the same information to me instead? I think I may enjoy having the opportunity to make that choice. Do I want to pay to keep my reputation, or allow the person with compromising knowledge incriminate me?

Seems to me that blackmail law forces my situation into the media market, as that is the only legitimate way someone could sell information.

I'm sure I'm overlooking something. Could someone set me straight?

[Aronnax]

So you don't see the problem posed to society by having a legal form of "leverage" against people in positions of power?

[darynthe]

Oh my God. I was going to ask this question today too. You read my mind..

I also don't get it. I mean, look at the paparazzi, they try to get access to info of celebrities and then sell it to the highest paying magazine.

It seems it is not illegal if they actually reach an understanding. For instance, when paparazzis get a compromising photo of Robert Pattinson and his costar, they have a deal to sell it first to Summit (the producing company) because they would be the higher offerers so it is hushed and then doesn't hurt the Twilight movie saga.

I think that if they made blackmail legal it would maybe be possible to sign contracts that would put a limit to the ammount the person should pay. Otherwise, since it is illegal, and no contract can be made, the blackmailer continues to milk the person forever. This is horrid.

[Storm]

Because it's threatening and can ruin the blackmailees life. If you're a news outlet and decide not to buy that picture of Hollywood Starlet cozening up to Senator, you may lose out on a profitable opportunity, but that's it. If you're Senator, you don't really have the option to not purchase the picture. If the picture gets out, you don't lose money, you lose your reputation. The holder of the picture can make you pay whatever se wants forever. Senator becomes a virtual slave to the picture holder.

[rickster]

I'm sure I'm overlooking something. Could someone set me straight?

The crime of blackmail / extortion is defined by menace. There is no crime in passing on substantially true information, but there can be a crime if that information is defamatory - in which case the publisher becomes criminal.

[Autoptic]

Blackmail goes beyond defamation. You're specifically not allowed to seek or accept payment for not doing something you perfectly free to do. In most places, it's not defamation if it's true anyway.

[Lucid]

I also don't get it. I mean, look at the paparazzi, they try to get access to info of celebrities and then sell it to the highest paying magazine.

It seems it is not illegal if they actually reach an understanding. For instance, when paparazzis get a compromising photo of Robert Pattinson and his costar, they have a deal to sell it first to Summit (the producing company) because they would be the higher offerers so it is hushed and then doesn't hurt the Twilight movie saga.

No. Selling information to someone is not blackmail. Blackmail is when you try to influence the actions of a person with the threat of exposing some scandal. It's coercion and it's no different from trying to influence the actions of someone through the threat of violence.

I think that if they made blackmail legal it would maybe be possible to sign contracts that would put a limit to the ammount the person should pay. Otherwise, since it is illegal, and no contract can be made, the blackmailer continues to milk the person forever. This is horrid.

*epic facepalm*

If I have done something that would compromise my reputation, and someone else gains access to that information legally, why isn't that person allowed to profit from that information.

If you've done something (either knowingly or accidentally) which would compromise the security of your identity and someone gains access to that information, why isn't that person allowed to profit from knowing your social security number, date of birth, etc. by getting credit cards in your name. Identity theft is fraud, blackmail is coercion. That's why they're illegal.

[Autoptic]

It's coercion and it's no different from trying to influence the actions of someone through the threat of violence.
...
Identity theft is fraud, blackmail is coercion. That's why they're illegal.

Coercion, by such an inclusive definition, would just be influencing someone by any means they don't like. Violence is quite different. If the information is in your possession thus literally is your possession and employing it doesn't constitute a statement of identity or trespass, it makes no sense to restrict you from profiting from it's communication or lack thereof.

[MartinH]

It's a threat made to someone to make them do something they don't want to.

Most forms of that are illegal.

[Autoptic]

It's a threat made to someone to make them do something they don't want to.

Most forms of that are illegal.

Barring fraud or trespass, if an act had nothing otherwise to do with you than you didn't want so, would it be illegal or make any sense to be so, if I preemptively allowed you to intentionally positively influence me not to do it? That's a large part of social interaction right there, excepting the whole nothing to do with you part.

[PunkinA]

The counterexamples raised don't seem to apply.

My premise was that compromising information was gained legally. This does not compare to threatening violence, because violent acts are already outlawed. Threatening violence is already outlawed. I understand why the law would prohibit asking for payments to not commit a crime. That kind of blackmail, related to threats of crime, exacerbates the menace.

The same would relate to making public certain legally protected information. Credit card numbers, social security numbers, PIN id's all carry a level of legal protection already. Threatening to publish that kind of information about someone else, no matter how it was obtained, is also illegal, and likewise taking bribes to refrain only exacerbates the illegality.

On the other hand, if a senator gets caught on camera, in a public location, making out with a prostitute, no crime has been committed. Someone could legally publish those photos, assuming they were factual, even if the senator did not like them. The law does not uphold a persons reputation, when the individual damages their own reputation through action. I have not defamed the senator. He damaged his own image.

The publishing company may or may not choose to publish. They have legal rights in either case. If the photographer offers to withhold publication, for a price, the senator then gains the priviledge of choosing or not. Depending on the future aspirations of the senator, the photographer could ask a high price not to publish. The fact that the senator is willing to pay a high price does not mean the action should then become illegal. If that were the case we would outlaw cancer treatment. High prices only represent high demand. The senator would not be legally obligated to pay the fees. He could choose the honest path and allow his situation to be exposed. I feel no sympathy for the senator. His choices created his compromise.

With the laws in place though, the senator is limited only to humiliation. He gains no option to pay a money price to forgo his reputation. The photographer is forced to market his photograph to publishing agencies to get the highest payout, which is much less than a free market would provide.

Taking photographs is legal. Publishing factual content (assuming it can be verified) is legal. Selling photographs is legal. It's even legal to pay someone not to do something. Bidding off the rights to information is also legal. As I understand it, the whole thing only becomes illegal when someone would not want information exposed, and they are allowed in on the bidding process.

[lurk]

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: ex·tort
Pronunciation: ik-'stort
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquere to remove by twisting, obtain by force, from ex- out + torquere to twist
: to obtain (as money) from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or unlawful use of authority or power

[PunkinA]

lurk,
Does that definition imply that my situation doesn't count as extortion, because the methods used are all legal?

[Lucid]

Coercion, by such an inclusive definition, would just be influencing someone by any means they don't like. Violence is quite different. If the information is in your possession thus literally is your possession and employing it doesn't constitute a statement of identity or trespass, it makes no sense to restrict you from profiting from it's communication or lack thereof.

You have your definitions confused.

Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʒən/ or /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat.

The counterexamples raised don't seem to apply.

My premise was that compromising information was gained legally. This does not compare to threatening violence, because violent acts are already outlawed. Threatening violence is already outlawed. I understand why the law would prohibit asking for payments to not commit a crime. That kind of blackmail, related to threats of crime, exacerbates the menace.

Yes, the information was gained legally. That's not the issue. It's how one uses the information that makes the action legal or illegal. With regard to the Letterman example, if the blackmailer had sold the information to a tabloid or newspaper, no crime would have been committed. Because the blackmailer tried to use the information to extort (that's the key word there) money from Letterman, it's illegal. How the information is obtained is not at issue, it's how it's used.

The same would relate to making public certain legally protected information. Credit card numbers, social security numbers, PIN id's all carry a level of legal protection already. Threatening to publish that kind of information about someone else, no matter how it was obtained, is also illegal, and likewise taking bribes to refrain only exacerbates the illegality.

No, again, it's not how the information is obtained that's important, it's how it's used. If I work for a phone company, for example, I have access to your name, address, phone number, social security number, etc. It's legal for me, an employee of the phone company, to have access to this information. It's illegal for me to then use the information I have to get credit cards in your name. It's also illegal for me to threaten to get credit cards in your name unless you pay me $1000 a week. That's extortion. I'm threatening to use information I obtained legally to harm you unless you give me what I want. This is extortion and it's illegal. However, it is legal for the phone company to sell your information to other companies.

Making sense? :)

[Autoptic]

Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʒən/ or /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of...some other form of pressure...Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.

With such a reduced limitation of scope, this'd cover any negative reinforcement at all.

[Lucid]

With such an expanded limitation of scope, that'd be any negative reinforcement at all.

Right, that's why there's a legal definition which may vary by locale and may be interpreted, to some degree, at the discretion of a judge, prosecutor, etc. to determine which kinds of coercion are legal and which kinds are illegal.

[Storm]

Actually, punkinA, I think it is legal to sell compromising photographs to the person they are of. (not sure I am not a lawyer). The photographs are on the open market. But, the difference with blackmail is that the blackmailer keeps the compromising information. The blackmailer isn't selling information, they are selling a promise.

[PortInStorm]

lurk,
Does that definition imply that my situation doesn't count as extortion, because the methods used are all legal?

Yes, because the definition indicates that it is wrong in TWO situations:
- if there is threat (this still exists in your example) OR
- if it is illegal

[Autoptic]

Lovely. Negotiation and ultimatums are coercion thus blackmail.:rolleyes:

[Lucid]

Lovely. Haggling, negotiation, and ultimatums are coercion thus blackmail.:rolleyes:

No, autoptic, you're not understanding. There's the general definition of the word which encompasses things which are both legal and illegal. Haggling and negotiation do not fall into this category because those things are two people trying to reach a voluntary agreement. Ultimatums might be considered coercion, as are may other things which are perfectly legal. However, certain forms of coercion are illegal and these include, among other things, blackmail. Is this becoming any clearer for you, or are you still confused?

[Autoptic]

No, autoptic, you're not understanding. There's the general definition of the word which encompasses things which are both legal and illegal. Haggling and negotiation do not fall into this category because those things are two people trying to reach a voluntary agreement. Ultimatums might be considered coercion, as are may other things which are perfectly legal. However, certain forms of coercion are illegal and these include, among other things, blackmail. Is this becoming any clearer for you, or are you still confused?

The question was why was it illegal. You aren't answering anything just saying that it is. Negotiation often isn't voluntary in your sense either. Blackmail doesn't require initiation of the seller either.

[Lucid]

The question was why was it illegal. You aren't answering anything just saying that it is. Negotiation often isn't voluntary in your sense either. Blackmail doesn't require initiation of the seller either.

YOUR question was not why it is illegal. Your issue appears to be the misapprehension that under the english definition of the word any form of coercion could be illegal. I am explaining to you why it is not. In other posts I have explained why blackmail is different from selling information to tabloids and why it is considered an illegal form of coercion.

Still confused?

[Autoptic]

YOUR question was not why it is illegal. Your issue appears to be the misapprehension that under the english definition of the word any form of coercion could be illegal. I am explaining to you why it is not. In other posts I have explained why blackmail is different from selling information to tabloids and why it is considered an illegal form of coercion.

Still confused?

You just compared it to violence, which is actually a form of trespass, and admittedly to fraud. Both are illegal. Neither are coercion. Threat of violence is based on the trespass itself as admission of intent to do so. Blackmail has no such basis.

[lurk]

lurk,
Does that definition imply that my situation doesn't count as extortion, because the methods used are all legal?
I'm not a lawyer, so I really don't know. Extortion is probably not the right word to focus on.
Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: black·mail
Pronunciation: 'blak-"mAl
Function: noun
Etymology: originally, payment extorted from farmers in Scotland and northern England, from black + dialectal mail payment, rent
: extortion or coercion by often written threats esp. of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecutionThat one doesn't do it for me. I don't get the "by often written threats" part. FWIW I'm just quoting what I get from dictionary.com under the heading "Legal Dictionary". I have no idea how legal it really is.

A definition that makes more sense to me is
black·mail (blāk'māl')
n.



Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
Something of value extorted in this manner.


Tribute formerly paid to freebooters along the Scottish border for protection from pillage.

[TheLastMohican]

Let's use Letterman's case as an example. The man was preparing to write a screenplay and then sell it to a production company to bring it to the screen, thereby exposing a bunch of Letterman's ugly secrets. Given that all those plans were legal, which of the following courses of action would count as blackmail, and why?


The writer calls Letterman privately and offers to sell him the rights to the screenplay, thereby giving him the option to have it burned and never produced.
The writer offers to sell the screenplay to Letterman, and adds some urgency to the matter by telling him that he will sell it to a certain production company if Letterman declines.
The writer contacts several production companies as well as Letterman and invites them to an auction where they can bid on the screenplay. Letterman naturally has extra incentive to outbid the companies.
The writer waits on actually writing the screenplay, but calls Letterman and offers to make an agreement with him: in exchange for some amount of money, he will promise (in contract form, if desired) to never write a screenplay about or including Letterman.


Thus far, I have not seen any valid justifications for defining any of the above as criminal. What is the logic behind the current dividing line?

[Lucid]

You just compared it to violence, which is actually a form of trespass, and admittedly to fraud. Both are illegal. Neither are coercion. Threat of violence is based on the trespass itself as admission of intent to do so. Blackmail has no such basis.

I'm sorry Autoptic, but your definitions of these things seem to be different from the legal definitions. Violence is not, legally, considered to be the same thing as trespass. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between your personal definitions of these things and the legal definitions of these things.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that threats of violence are the same thing as blackmail. I'm saying that blackmail is an illegal form of coercion. Which most of you probably already knew. :rolleyes:

[knick4life]

It's easy to get confused with general definitions. Let's look at the statute. In the Letterman case, the accused was charged with attempted grand larceny under New York law. Larceny under the applicable NY Penal law (Sec 155.05(e)) includes extortion:

"(e) By extortion.
A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces
another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person
by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so
delivered, the actor or another will:
[...]
(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or
false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule"

Basically, it's scaring someone into thinking they'll have a damaging fact revealed if they don't give their property to you.

Why? Laws are generally a combination of practical and moral reasons. From a moral perspective, as a general matter, it is morally abhorrent to take someone's property through threats.

From a practical perspective, everyone has secrets and we don't want people to go bankrupt, losing everything they ever worked for, everytime a secret leaks out. That would be a disincentive to seek wealth-producing activities. So how is this typically different from business negotiations? Those are typically considered wealth-maximizing activities. Even if someone gets the upper hand in a specific bargain, we can all rely on the comfortable knowledge of market theory: that in the long run we're all better off.

There may be historical reasons as well. American jurisprudence has always favored the protection of property rights. Volumes can be written on why that is.


@TheLastMohican
This issue begs the question of where one's own rights begin and another's end. There is no philosophical consensus on where that line is to be drawn.

In all four of your hypotheticals, the accused contacts Letterman. In contacting Letterman, he has gone a long way towards "compelling/inducing" and "instilling a fear" as mentioned in the statute. The justification is that in contacting him, he could be seen as directly inflicting the psychological torment (of losing his property) in Letterman. Remember: the focus of the law is not on what your rights are as the holder of the information (such as to sell to someone else), but rather the rights of the victim/property holder.

A man in all four of those hypotheticals could be ultimately found guilty or not guilty. More legal research is necessary and there are many potential questions of fact which could swing the minds of a jury.

[jm123]

I believe the principle lies with the fact that the blackmailed receives nothing in return, and they are coerced into a verbal contract. Paying does not prevent the info from being released at a later date. It may delay it, however their is no fair consideration received by the victim, as they are only delaying a legal action. So a blackmailed individual could pay for services and then get screwed when the info is released later on, and would have no recourse to remedy the situation.

[Autoptic]

I believe the principle lies with the fact that the blackmailed receives nothing in return, and they are coerced into a verbal contract. Paying does not prevent the info from being released at a later date. It may delay it, however their is no fair consideration received by the victim, as they are only delaying a legal action. So a blackmailed individual could pay for services and then get screwed when the info is released later on, and would have no recourse to remedy the situation.

This differs from other deals, how? You can make agreements for immaterial, even abstract services including potentials and negations with the same exact problems.

[jm123]

This differs from other deals, how? You can make agreements for immaterial, even abstract services including potentials and negations with the same exact problems.

The fact that the blackmailed individual is at an inherent disadvantage in the process, is the crux. They are an unwilling participant, and have nothing to objectively gain. There is no possible outcome that will insure reasonable consideration for the extorted. I.E. A breach by the blackmailing individual, is still legal and even if they were sued for failing to follow the contract, the damages incurred by the blackmailed person would most likely exceed the amount that was paid to the extortionist. Also the extortionist most likely would never have the funds to repay the damages caused.

Here is a basic legal explanation of the legal elements of a contract To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am not defending the law, I am only attempting to give you my thoughts on the basis of the law. In my personal opinion the law was devised by the class that it protects. Basically policymakers are the main targets of blackmail attempts. So, they devised a way to quash any attempts by making it illegal to try. Keep in mind that in the old times it was the perfect law, as they could arrest the blackmailer and then have their friends cover it up.

[alrightgame]

Should it be illegal to accept the blackmail? You promote blackmail when you bend to it. The truth is the truth and people, including people of politics have to understand that they are not above truth. Truth is the blackhole of philosophy. You can't lie to yourself... easily.

I believe it should be illegal for both parties, the solicitor and the poor bastard keeping a dirty little secret, then again, low blows are not my style (as a Klingon would say, it is not honorable).

[TheBlackKnight]

Because blackmail causes psychological harm, and can possibly lead to and/or force the victim to do something dangerous. A reporter who has a picture of a senator and his mistress selling the picture to a cable news network, causing political harm, is not the same as him threatening to do so unless the senator give him a million dollars, causing financial and psychological harm. Most forms of inflicting financial/psychological harm are illegal. Politics and image, well, speak for themselves.





TheBlackKnight added to this post, 3 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Should it be illegal to accept the blackmail? You promote blackmail when you bend to it. The truth is the truth and people, including people of politics have to understand that they are not above truth. Truth is the blackhole of philosophy. You can't lie to yourself... easily.

I believe it should be illegal for both parties, the solicitor and the poor bastard keeping a dirty little secret, then again, low blows are not my style (as a Klingon would say, it is not honorable).

What about privacy rights?

[Autoptic]

The fact that the blackmailed individual is at an inherent disadvantage in the process, is the crux. They are an unwilling participant, and have nothing to objectively gain. There is no possible outcome that will insure reasonable consideration for the extorted. I.E. A breach by the blackmailing individual, is still legal and even if they were sued for failing to follow the contract, the damages incurred by the blackmailed person would most likely exceed the amount that was paid to the extortionist. Also the extortionist most likely would never have the funds to repay the damages caused.

Why would something be illegal because it wouldn't qualify as a contract? Agreements don't have to qualify as contracts. Right's don't end when an exchange doesn't fit an enforceable contract. It's still your information. You can still use it and still cause the "damages".

I am not defending the law, I am only attempting to give you my thoughts on the basis of the law. In my personal opinion the law was devised by the class that it protects. Basically policymakers are the main targets of blackmail attempts. So, they devised a way to quash any attempts by making it illegal to try. Keep in mind that in the old times it was the perfect law, as they could arrest the blackmailer and then have their friends cover it up.

I'm aware. Bullshit traditions serving the politicians are everywhere, rationalized for their protection, and perversely amusing when defended by the seemingly blind. Rights of royalty and nobility still exist in modified form. This is exactly how we got copyrights and pardons among others. Some of "the People" are trying to get in on the games instead of removing them.

Because blackmail causes psychological harm, and can possibly lead to and/or force the victim to do something dangerous. A reporter who has a picture of a senator and his mistress selling the picture to a cable news network, causing political harm, is not the same as him threatening to do so unless the senator give him a million dollars, causing financial and psychological harm. Most forms of inflicting financial/psychological harm are illegal. Politics and image, well, speak for themselves.

Dispensing of your own property isn't limited because someone else strongly dislikes it. As we've already said, you can still use it. You just can't be paid not to. You can evict someone from a building you own if they don't pay the rent. Psychological damage isn't an issue.

[TheBlackKnight]

Dispensing of your own property isn't limited because someone else strongly dislikes it. As we've already said, you can still use it. You just can't be paid not to. You can evict someone from a building you own if they don't pay the rent. Psychological damage isn't an issue.

Eviction for failure to comply with your housing contract is by no means the same. That's a contract, agreed to by both parties beforehand, with the consquences for breaking it clearly understood from the get-go. In blackmail, as mentioned previously, one party is at an inherent disadvantage.

You haven't addressed the financial aspect.

[jm123]

Agreements don't have to qualify as contracts. Right's don't end when an exchange doesn't fit an enforceable contract. It's still your information. You can still use it and still cause the "damages".


An agreement, in the context that you are using it, is a form of contract.

To me it sounds as if you understand why it is illegal. However, you do not agree with it, correct?

If that is the case I do not believe anyone will give you a solid enough explanation besides the fact that it is a threat. You can be arrested for threatening someone with bodily harm, and in the same way you can be arrested for threatening someone with release of private information.

However, I believe it would be legal, to sell the rights of photos to another individual with no threatening connotations. Such as in the Letterman case. I believe he could have contacted Letterman and offered to sell the copyrights to his photos, with no threats implied, this may have been legal.

[Autoptic]

Eviction for failure to comply with your housing contract is by no means the same. That's a contract, agreed to by both parties beforehand, with the consquences for breaking it clearly understood from the get-go. In blackmail, as mentioned previously, one party is at an inherent disadvantage.

Your confusing the existence of a special word for eviction for the act itself. The act itself is simply making use of your rights. Eviction isn't the contract. The contract was a kind of temporary possess which has ceased to apply. The acts in blackmail are just making use of your rights. Why can you threaten to perform this perfectly legal action if they don't pay you if you can't threaten to perform other perfectly legal actions if you aren't similarly paid?

You haven't addressed the financial aspect.

Money needn't even be involved. As I said, this would cover any potential negative reinforcement. That money's considered special here is solely due to the it being so in the definition of blackmail. The definition, conceptual consistency, and actual purposes are what we were questioning.

Admittedly, we might just be at that point where people think dressing in plaid on weekends should be illegal because they define plaid as illegal when it's the weekend is involved. Simple ickiness is already a strong force in legislation after all.

An agreement, in the context that you are using it, is a form of contract.

Making non legally binding agreements isn't illegal. That something can't constitute one only means that it won't constitute one. You can't contract slavery, but you can gives someone money to act like one. The courts don't care until you try to enforce it.

If that is the case I do not believe anyone will give you a solid enough explanation besides the fact that it is a threat. You can be arrested for threatening someone with bodily harm, and in the same way you can be arrested for threatening someone with release of private information.

You won't be arrested for threatening to release private information you legally posses. Only if you demand something for it. This is quite different from a violent threat. The latter as I've mentioned indicates intent to commit. Committing the actions threatened in blackmail aren't necessarily illegal. Why would intent to commit a legal action be illegal? I'm not the only one that's asked this.

[jm123]

You won't be arrested for threatening to release private information you legally posses. Only if you demand something for it. This is quite different from a violent threat. The latter as I've mentioned indicates intent to commit. Committing the actions threatened in blackmail aren't necessarily illegal. Why would intent to commit a legal action be illegal? I'm not the only one that's asked this.

Blackmail is a contract, this is not an arguable point, as blackmail meets all of the requirements of a contract.

The issue is, that it is using a leveraged position to gain a substantial advantage in negotiations. This is illegal in contract law.

Alternate law
Insider trading=Legally obtained information that is used to gain an unfair advantage on the free market. Such as a CEO selling all of their shares before filling bankruptcy. What is wrong with this? He is doing something legal, he has the right to sell his shares when he wants.

Please remember I am not a lawyer I have only taken a few government classes in college.

[Brion]

Why is blackmail illegal... I have pictures of the law.. I'll provide them and the negatives to you for $1500.

[Functianalyst]

Did not read the posts thoroughly, but at best blackmail is based on morality not criminal matters. However can blackmail result in similar or harsher penalty than a white crime where money was stolen? Blackmail is usually the result of the victim doing something wrong (or possibly illegal). So does that mean if you do not ask for money, you are then considered a hero for whistle blowing?

[Tyrant Soup]

Suppose I accidentally discovered how to make cars get 10 times better mileage. Suppose I went to Exxon and threatened to make this information public unless I was paid a billion dollars to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Is this blackmail?

[Mabel]

I am not a lawyer so I don't know the legalities of Letterman's situation. I am a nurse, so I relate to this in a medical way. What I understand is this:
1. If I were to get a persons medical records in a legitimate way,
2. and I knew that person had a pre existing condition (even if it is only a injury they had 30 years ago)
3. and that person is applying for a job that I want
4. and I know they are as qualified as I am to do the job
5. and I know that this pre existing condition would eliminate them from the list of possible candidates.............

I can
Keep my big mouth shut, thus keeping the playing field level

Discuss the issue of the pre existing condition with that person and let them know that it would eliminate them from the list of candidates. Thus allowing them to make a decision about whether to continue with the selection process.

Discuss the issue of the pre existing condition with that person and tell them that for a goodly sum of money I will keep my mouth shut.

Discuss the issue of the pre exisiting condition with the potential employer, which would eliminate the other person from consideration. (Note: The employer, would be smart to eliminate me also, because as a nurse I have just violated many federal and state laws).

There is only one correct answer. Keep my mouth shut.
Discussing the issue with the other person in relation to the potential job gives them a valid reason to fear what I might do, even if I promise to do nothing.
All other options are illegal. One is extortion and the last is defamation.