The lighter side of blackmail

[disorderlyvision]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/steinberg/steinberg16.1.html#


Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and unrepentant anarchist, made the claim in his 1976 book, Defending the Undefendable, that there is nothing inherently immoral about blackmail and in fact if legalized could reduce immoral activities overall.


Let us test Dr. Block's hypothesis in David Letterman's recent case and perhaps discover a new perspective on the morality of blackmail.

According to Block, blackmail is simply an offer to keep silent in exchange for another good, usually money. If the offer is accepted, then the blackmailer keeps quiet. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer exercises his freedom of speech, which in this case is to go public with a certain truth.

By telling the truth no crime is committed, so why should an offer to keep silent be illegal?


Walter Block defines in general terms that blackmail is the threat to do something – anything which in itself is not illegal – unless certain demands are met.

Take for instance a potential boycott. Perhaps a nationwide religious group's leadership meets and demands that their constituents should no longer buy from companies that advertise on The Late Show until David Letterman is replaced with Kirk Cameron. Couldn't this threatening action be construed as blackmail? If Company X does not give in to Demand Y, then Action Z will be taken. Logically, blackmail and boycotts work on the same principle.

In another example, CBS makes their employees sign non-disclosure agreements. These contracts protect the network from leaks that could damage its ability to attract an audience. Couldn't non-disclosure agreements be construed as blackmail? If Person A does not maintain silence, he will be fired and possibly sued. Isn't this a threat? Possibly, but it's perfectly legal and no network would allow its employees – or even visitors – leave the premises without signing these documents. Can't networks instead pay their employees and guests to stay quiet about a show until it is aired? Doesn't that make more sense? Perhaps we should boycott the networks until they change their policy...

Lastly, if blackmail were legal, it may have prevented David Letterman from acting immorally in the first place. Perhaps he was a day away from putting himself in a situation where he would give into his temptations and sleep with a staffer. If blackmail were legal, there would no doubt be more blackmailers, so Letterman would have to factor that into his decision. He would have to know that there might be little chance to keep such an action a secret. Factor that in with the huge numbers of marginally paid employees at CBS and his chances of having wanton sex without consequences would be close to zero. With this knowledge, wouldn't Letterman think twice before dropping his pants?

As humans with certain natural rights, we have the freedom to speak, and we also have the freedom to not speak. We also have the right to make offers and engage in trades. Therefore, the person in the wrong wasn't necessarily the blackmailer since he did not commit any real crime.

I for one do not condone blackmail. It is my hope that in the future, the thought of committing a crime or immoral activity would be incentive enough not to engage in the action. Until that time is reached, perhaps we are better off with blackmail than without.

October 6, 2009

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] or [friend him on Facebook] is creator of the upcoming series "Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader" and a principal of a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas.

[yokna7]

Blackmail is as American as apple pie.;)

[BenIsForRon]

Another terrible article from the Rockwell site. Stupid shit like this will not help us develop a political coalition.

What fucking person thinks about Blackmail when they're about to sleep with somebody? Ridiculous.

[disorderlyvision]

Another terrible article from the Rockwell site. Stupid shit like this will not help us develop a political coalition.

What fucking person thinks about Blackmail when they're about to sleep with somebody? Ridiculous.

And what exactly do you disagree with?

[BenIsForRon]

Blackmail is coercion. What constitutes blackmail is another debate, but I think what was done to Letterman should definitely be illegal. There is no moral justification for putting someone in that position. People boycotting CBS is different because... well fuck, I don't know. This is hard, but it's one of those gut feelings. Sometimes, you can trust your gut, I think... let me think about it.

EDIT: Ok, I thougt about it... The CBS viewers are not going to do anything bad to damage CBS's reputation, they are just going to stop giving CBS money. CBS has no right to to their money.

[LibForestPaul]

If I find information about a company, say leaking toxic chemicals into a river. I have pictures of this illegal act. I am not allowed to sell these pictures and information to the company, but I am able to sell it a media company. Including entering into a contract that prohibits me from selling this information to anyone else?

[BenIsForRon]

If I find information about a company, say leaking toxic chemicals into a river. I have pictures of this illegal act. I am not allowed to sell these pictures and information to the company, but I am able to sell it a media company. Including entering into a contract that prohibits me from selling this information to anyone else?

Complicated situation. I do believe if you took money from the company (doing the pollution) to stay silent, you would be an accessory to a crime. Hard to say on that second part.

[Dionysus]

Have some people never seen a movie? The blackmailer continues asking for more and more money, breaking the original agreement. Should we have secret courts adjudicate blackmail case contracts? The blackmailer, even if ordered by a court to stop, could simply fill in a third party and blackmail through a straw-man, making someone's life a living hell and totally enslaving them to the blackmailer. Thus, blackmail should be illegal and that article is stupid.

edit: Observe the fact that being blackmailed must suck, people still do it even though it's illegal, and no one is dissuaded from acting immorally notwithstanding.

[lx43]

I don't like the idea of blackmailing.

Being a whistleblower is another situation a la Enron, etc.

[dannno]

Have some people never seen a movie? The blackmailer continues asking for more and more money, breaking the original agreement. Should we have secret courts adjudicate blackmail case contracts? The blackmailer, even if ordered by a court to stop, could simply fill in a third party and blackmail through a straw-man, making someone's life a living hell and totally enslaving them to the blackmailer. Thus, blackmail should be illegal and that article is stupid.

edit: Observe the fact that being blackmailed must suck, people still do it even though it's illegal, and no one is dissuaded from acting immorally notwithstanding.

I believe you could get together with a lawyer and draw up a contract if it were legal.

The lawyer would not be able to tell the public due to client confidentiality.

[disorderlyvision]

EDIT: Ok, I thougt about it... The CBS viewers are not going to do anything bad to damage CBS's reputation, they are just going to stop giving CBS money. CBS has no right to to their money.

damaging somones reputation is not illegal. it happens everyday. The guy could have just went public and damaged lettermans reputation. he was offering letterman an out. "Hey I know this about you, if you compensate me I will not go blabbing my mouth to everyone i know and all the media outlets." at that point letterman could have turned him down and went public. letterman could have turned him down and let the "black mailer" go public, or he could have paid him to keep his indiscretions quiet. I do not see the problem.



Have some people never seen a movie? The blackmailer continues asking for more and more money, breaking the original agreement.

Because movies acurately portray real life:rolleyes:

A written contract could be enforced.

Hell, the blackmailer was doing letterman a favor by trying to keep it private. he could have just went to the media or papparazi and been done with it. I am sure any of the tabloids would have compensated him nicely. He did the respectful thing and tried to work it out with letterman first

[BenIsForRon]

I'm not saying damaging the reputation is illegal. If the guy had just come out and said it then he would be OK. He'd still be an asshole, but not a criminal


He did the respectful thing and tried to work it out with letterman first

...I think we may have different definitions of "respectful"

[tmosley]

Another terrible article from the Rockwell site. Stupid shit like this will not help us develop a political coalition.

What fucking person thinks about Blackmail when they're about to sleep with somebody? Ridiculous.

*Sigh*

Did you READ the book? I would suggest you do so. It will rid you of a number of hypocrisies.

[BenIsForRon]

*Sigh*

Did you READ the book? I would suggest you do so. It will rid you of a number of hypocrisies.

Where am I being hypocritical? I'm just talking about where to draw the line between criminal/not criminal. Blackmail should be illegal because there is nothing good that can come from it. Our justice system should be the deterrent for crime, not the possibility of future blackmail.

I'm not gonna read the guys book when his article is so terrible?

[disorderlyvision]

Where am I being hypocritical? I'm just talking about where to draw the line between criminal/not criminal. Blackmail should be illegal because there is nothing good that can come from it. Our justice system should be the deterrent for crime, not the possibility of future blackmail.

I'm not gonna read the guys book when his article is so terrible?

The guy that wrote the article and the guy that wrote the book, Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block, are two different people. I would at least suggest going to mises.org and reading or listening to the chapter on blackmail.

And there is something good that could come of it. lettermans (or whoevers) secret could have remained a secret.

[BenIsForRon]

And there is something good that could come of it. lettermans (or whoevers) secret could have remained a secret.

I don't see how that's a good thing. Or a bad thing for that matter. The problem is that another human being tried to use his ability to alter Letterman's fate to make a quick 2 million.

[disorderlyvision]

I don't see how that's a good thing. Or a bad thing for that matter. The problem is that another human being tried to use his ability to alter Letterman's fate to make a quick 2 million.

What letterman isn't responsible for his own actions. Letterman made the decision to potentially alter his own fate by the decisions he made

[BenIsForRon]

No doubt, but that doesn't justify the blackmailer's actions. You're basically saying 2 million dollars is an OK fine to pay for infidelity. I'm saying you can't put a monetary value on it. The man is using his position of power to extort money from Letterman, which is wrong. It's an action against Letterman.

[disorderlyvision]

No doubt, but that doesn't justify the blackmailer's actions. You're basically saying 2 million dollars is an OK fine to pay for infidelity. I'm saying you can't put a monetary value on it. The man is using his position of power to extort money from Letterman, which is wrong. It's an action against Letterman.


well he wasnt asking a factroy worker for 2 million.

[BenIsForRon]

I'm saying you can't put a monetary value on it.

.,

[LibForestPaul]

No doubt, but that doesn't justify the blackmailer's actions. You're basically saying 2 million dollars is an OK fine to pay for infidelity. I'm saying you can't put a monetary value on it. The man is using his position of power to extort money from Letterman, which is wrong. It's an action against Letterman.

He can ask whatever he wants in a contract. If Lettermen does not find the terms amicable, this fellow can simply go to someone else to sell his information, his words, his speech.

[dannno]

He can ask whatever he wants in a contract. If Lettermen does not find the terms amicable, this fellow can simply go to someone else to sell his information, his words, his speech.

Exactly.

They could go to the media and ask for $$ to release the story, that would be legal.

Or they can go to Letterman first and see if he has a better offer. If Letterman rejects, he doesn't lose ANYTHING because the person could have gone public with the information to begin with, or sold it to someone else. All blackmail is just the opportunity to hide info that you don't want public that has already become public.

[dannno]

I mean, I'm sure if the person went to Letterman and asked for $100, he would have given it to him (along with a contract specifying that they will not release the information to anybody)

Obviously Letterman would rather have $2 million than let this get out.

[disorderlyvision]

I'm saying you can't put a monetary value on it. .


You can, and he did

[BenIsForRon]

He can ask whatever he wants in a contract. If Lettermen does not find the terms amicable, this fellow can simply go to someone else to sell his information, his words, his speech.

I'm saying the act of asking for the money should be illegal.

The man has a position of power over Letterman: he can alter Letterman's fate by revealing the infidelity. This is not illegal, or wrong. However, if the person uses this position of power to gain something from Letterman, then it is wrong. He needs to be honest and either release the information or not. Or he could ask for Letterman's opinion, but not try to extort money from him.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[BenIsForRon]

What power did he have? He had absolutely no power at all. There is no force involved.

You are talking sideways out of your but. You said it's okay to boycott but not to blackmail? What the hell?

I have information X which is true. I have a right to publish this information however I am willing to contract with you not to publish it if we agree on the terms. That is purely voluntary. Power my ass!

Are you denying that the knowledge of Dave Letterman's affair is a form of power, especially when no one else knows? He can't be faulted for having that power, but he can be faulted for using that power to coerce money from the person he has power over. Yeah, he's not holding a gun to his head, but it's still wrong.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[BenIsForRon]

You can only use a word like coerce if there is forced involved. Clearly there is not and I find it kind of absurd you continue to express a view of coercion.

By publishing his knowledge he might have made more than two million. So are you going to argue that if he published a one time leaflet that was distributed and sold nationwide and made lets see....

300 million * 10% of the population = 30 million * .25 cents = 7.5 million.

He could have made a lot more money publishing than contracting for silence for a measly 2 million.

It's not as bad as physical force, but it is force. He's using Letterman's embarrassing situation to convince Letterman to give him money, when he would never get that money otherwise.

You guys keep talking about the money, the amount of money has nothing to do with it being a crime or not. Shit, LFOD, it looks like you're making the argument that the guy was trying to do Dave a favor. I don't think I'm the one being absurd here.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Imperial]

Isn't government blackmailing you when it gives you a lighter sentence for confession?

[BenIsForRon]

Favor has nothing to do with it. I am in agreement that an individual has the right to voluntarily contract.

Person X has information. Offers to contract with person Y. If they agree on the terms it's a done deal. Neither party has to agree.

You are saying it is illegal for person X to solicit person Y.

There is no force involved whatsoever.

Like I said, the force is not physical, it is of another nature, more like a threat or harassment. On Wikipedia, they refer to it as "menacing".

The problem with your analogy is that person Y does not want to be in the negotiations, period. Person X is therefore "forcing" person Y into negotiations.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[BenIsForRon]

That is just silly because Person Y can do whatever they want.

What if person Y does not want an ultimatum? Person X is forcing an ultimatum on to person Y.



In order to establish credibility for your assertion of force, please prove the criminal elements for use of force.

Here's the definition of blackmail under English Law


if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

So basically, the "menace" is unwarrented, because Person X has no reasonable grounds to demand money from Person Y. "Person X wants money" is not reasonable.

[LibForestPaul]

Jury Nullification. No crime has been committed. Next...

[BenIsForRon]

Guilty. Person X is a douchebag. Next...

[tangent4ronpaul]

Letterman played this one right!

got a bomb in your lap? - pull the pin yourself. Clinton concealed, then later admitted to smoking pot once - "but I didn't inhale". It was a scandal. Obama openly admitted to smoking pot and there was nothing to use against him.

Letterman:

On his October 1, 2009 show, Letterman announced that he had been the victim of an extortion attempt by someone threatening to reveal that he had had sex with more than one of his female employees. He confirmed the relationships.[53][54]

Letterman opened his October 1 monologue by saying that three weeks earlier (on September 9, 2009) someone had left a package in his car with material he said he would write into a screenplay and a book if Letterman did not pay him $2 million. Letterman said that he contacted the Manhattan District Attorney's office, ultimately cooperating with them to conduct a sting operation involving giving the man a phony check.[55] The alleged extortionist, Robert J. "Joe" Halderman, was subsequently arrested after trying to cash the check.[56]

Halderman was a television journalist with CBS News for thirty years, and at the time of his arrest a producer of the CBS true crime journalism series 48 Hours.[citation needed] Halderman was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury[57] and pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempted grand larceny on October 2, 2009.[58]

Letterman acknowledged in grand jury testimony that he had affairs with staff. He did not name them during his October 1 monologue.

Stephanie Birkitt, one of Letterman's assistants who has been linked romantically to Letterman, had previously been a member of the CBS page program, and had worked for both Letterman's show and for 48 Hours before joining Letterman's staff.[59] Birkett had until recently lived with Halderman,[60][61][62][63][64][65] who is alleged to have copied Birkitt's personal diary and to have used it, along with private emails, in the blackmail package.[66]

On October 3, 2009, a former CBS employee, Holly Hester, announced that she and Letterman had engaged in a year-long "secret" affair in the early 1990s while she was his intern and a student at New York University.[67][68]

In the days following the initial announcement of the affairs and the arrest, several prominent women, including Kathie Lee Gifford, co-host of NBC's Today Show, and NBC news anchor Ann Curry questioned whether Letterman's affairs with subordinates created an unfair working environment.[69] A spokesman for Worldwide Pants, Letterman's production company, said the company's sexual harassment policy did not prohibit sexual relationships between managers and employees.[70] According to business news reporter Eve Tahmincioglu, "CBS suppliers are supposed to follow the company's business conduct policies" and the CBS 2008 Business Conduct Statement states that “If a consenting romantic or sexual relationship between a supervisor and a direct or indirect subordinate should develop, CBS requires the supervisor to disclose this information to his or her Company’s Human Resources Department...."[71]

On his October 5 show, Letterman devoted a segment to a public apology to his wife and staff.[72][73]

-t

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Guilty. Person X is a douchebag. Next...

Holy fuck. Since when is being a douchebag against the law? Hmmm, if you feel douchebags should be thrown in jail, well, that there makes you a douchebag, if I do say so myself. :D

[BenIsForRon]

Well, it's not being any douchebag. Blackmailing someone is the epitome of douchebaggery, and deserves a hefty fine or prison sentence, depending on the severity (Letterman is low on that guage).

[LibForestPaul]

Guilty. Person X is a douchebag. Next...

takes 12 of yous yet only 1 of uses to get the law to do our bidding :)

3% ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

looking over this thread, it's Walter Block FTW

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[SimpleName]

Against everything I previously believed, I think the author is right...partially. He looks at it very black/white. A mistake many libertarians turn other people away with. This sort of runs along the same lines as when libertarians seemingly prop up tyrannical regimes when they talk about non-interventionism. People who blackmail are disgusting. They dedicate their lives to destroying others. Blackmail almost always involves following people around and obsessing over their lives. Nevermind the fact that they try to persuade the blackmailees to hand over loads of cash or favors.

The biggest problem is that most blackmail comes with coercion (i.e. mafia). Pressuring people to act with punishment of violence. For other cases, such as the Letterman case, I haven't been able to think up a real reason why it should be illegal. The producer knew what Letterman was doing and was willing to expose it. Unless their was other illegal activities involved in coming to the knowledge, he was simply persuading Letterman into an agreement. Letterman didn't have to accept and in fact didn't. He came out and admitted it. It was a despicable thing to do, but I don't see how it should be illegal.

I wouldn't want anything like this happening to me or my family in any way. It is surely a miserable thing to live through. But so is having your parents divorce or having your children accidentally shoot themselves. We wouldn't advocate making divorce or guns illegal though. Let me know if I'm missing a gaping hole of information.