inBOIL

I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, and hopefully someone here can explain this to me. I can’t understand the reasoning behind blackmail being illegal/immoral. I can understand if what you’re threatening is illegal, (pay me or I’ll reveal your medical records) or if you have an obligation to report something (pay me or I’ll tell the cops you abuse your kids). But if you have a right to choose which course of action to take, why is it wrong? I don’t see how the blackmailee is victimized by paying to keep something a secret when revealing that information isn’t something that victimizes him, especially if he would rather pay than have that information revealed. Aren’t you just selling your decision to someone who has a vested interest in the outcome? How is this different than, say, a landowner selling the development rights for a forest to an environmental group?

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

Willravel

"Pay me $10,000 or I'll call a member of your son's unit and out him as gay."
"But he's not gay."
"So? $10,000. "

It's because not every secret is true or something illegal/immoral. I'm not sure how one can view extortion as anything but wrong.

SSJTWIZTA

uhh, because poeple are greedy?

__________________
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me And there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemoller

Ustwo

Blackmail would become a true industry if it were legal.

Hang out at a strip club, run the plates of the cars, have hookers come onto the guy, get pictures, ding ding pay up or we tell the wife.

Play hookie from work? Thats a blackmailing...

Had an abortion and are now president of the PTA? Thats a blackmailing....

There can be really no good at all from making it legal.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

allaboutmusic

The illegal question is interesting, but I can't believe you're questioning why it's immoral. If it is an intimately revealed detail, it can be a huge breach of trust. My closest friends know things about me that I wouldn't want other people to know, and vice versa. I'd be a really piss-poor friend if I extorted money out of them to not reveal what they have told me confidentially... and if one of them did that to me, you can bet your ass that close friendship would be over.

inBOIL

That's not really what I'm talking about. In your example, revealing the information would be immoral, since it was given to you in confidence. It doesn't matter whether there was a blackmail attempt. And I agree that it's a piss-poor thing to do to a friend.

Suppose you're walking around in a public place and see some guy who you know is married pick up a hooker. Since you have the right (both moral and legal) to keep that information to yourself, and you have the right to reveal that information to the wife, why is it then wrong to sell that decision to the man? Yes, it's a mean thing to do, but am I the only one who thinks that mean does not necessarily mean wrong?

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

fresnelly

Laws aren't one the books just to codify what is "mean," but to discourage financial gain for being so. Do you really want to live in a society where profit and meanness is an acceptable line of work?

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

hulk

It's immoral if it causes grief/pain to the other party, either financially or having to deal with the repercussions. Since blackmail by it's nature is a choice between one of two painful outcomes, it's rotten to the core.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Sion

most of the things in this world that we consider mean are also considered wrong. the fact that it is mean is the reason we consider it wrong. but this is an ethical/moral judgement, not a legal one.

as for the legal aspect, many of the things that the we consider mean and/or wrong are illegal. some of them are also legal.


btw, though common usage has blackmail and extortion being interchangeable, by law they are not

from wiki:

extortion:

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution through coercion or intimidation or threatens a person, entity, or institution with physical or reputational harm unless he is paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. The four simple words "pay up or else" are sufficient to constitute the crime of extortion.[citation needed] An extortionate threat made to another in jest is still extortion.[citation needed] Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal definition means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]

In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce". Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

Extortion is distinguished from blackmail. In blackmail, the blackmailer threatens to do something which would be legal or normally allowed.


blackmail:

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal information about a person, or even do something to destroy the threatened person, unless the blackmailed target fulfills certain demands. This information is usually of an embarrassing or socially damaging nature.

In a broader sense, blackmail is an offer to refrain from some action which would be legal or normally allowed, and is thus distinguished from extortion, which carries the threat of unlawful and often violent action if demands are not met.

The word is derived from the word for tribute paid by English and Scottish border dwellers to Border Reivers in return for immunity from raids. This tribute was paid in goods or labour (reditus nigri, or "blackmail"): the opposite is blanche firmes or reditus albi, or "white rent" (denoting payment by silver).

English law
Under s21(1) of the Theft Act 1968 of English law, a person commits the offence:

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.
The Act uses the word "menaces" which is considered wider in scope than "threat" and involves a warning of any consequences known to be considered unpleasant by the intended victim. This covers the spectrum from actual or threatened violence to the victim or others, through damage to property, to the disclosure of information.

Homosexuals have been frequently subjected to blackmail in the past[citation needed], even though today homosexuality is no longer illegal.[citations needed] In theory, this is becoming less of a threat as homosexuality, transsexualism and other non-standard sexualities are increasingly acceptable in society. But, in reality, the question is whether the individual is already "out". If their sexuality is already public knowledge, intended victims should not feel threatened by a menace to make another disclosure. The test is based on the victim's state of mind. If he or she is only known within a limited community, a menace to disclose to parents or, possibly, employers, could be considered threatening. Other pretexts for blackmail have included the threat to reveal adultery or criminal acts. But whatever the nature of the menace, it must be direct. Any vague threat to cause "something bad" to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met, should not affect the mind of an ordinary person.

Commercial blackmail has become more common. This arises when a large commercial organisation receives credible information that it will suffer loss or damage in a particular way unless money is transferred. There are two major areas of threat:

denial of service attacks target corporations that have a major presence on the internet. Disrupting the portal through which on-line sales are made could seriously affect the corporation's revenue flow and demonstrating an ability to orchestrate consistent attacks may well represent a sufficient menace for these purposes; and
introducing poisons or other dangerous chemicals into the products offered for sale in a supermarket or other large store could significantly damage retail sales, or influence a manufacturer or national distributor. For example, a blackmailer threatened Masterfoods Corporation, the company that manufactures Mars Bars in Australia, claiming to have poisoned seven Mars and Snickers bars at random in New South Wales.
(See also protection racket.)


Lawful means
Many debt collectors have been accused of blackmail, but those pursuing legal debts are generally able to justify their threats of repossession because, even though as it may be unpleasant to the victim, this is a legitimate use of lawful civil law remedies. By contrast, those chasing illegal debts (a gambling debt, for example, which was not until recently enforceable under English law)[citation needed] who back up their demands with the threat of bodily injury cannot avail themselves of the same defence. There will also be liability even though the debts are legally owed if the menaces are of a criminal nature, e.g. of an assault or more serious violence or criminal damage occurred. The offence criminalises the means adopted by the creditors as the social problem to be deterred, rather than the evasion by the debtors. The creditors are expected to use the standard judicial remedies to recover what is owing[citation needed].

The maximum sentence under the terms of the Act is life imprisonment; this reflects the severity of the offense, which in turn, can consequently destroy a person's reputation, personal life and livelihood.

If the elements of blackmail are not made out and the defendant has acquired a vehicle, a charge under s12 Act 1968 may be preferred, see TWOC.


finally, to answer the OPs question: blackmail is both wrong and illegal because you do NOT have the right to destroy a person's reputation either publicly or privately.

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

Infinite_Loser

If blackmail wasn't illegal, I would how many people would make a living off of outing gay members of the government.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

elaphe

Whether one wishes to call the threat of revealing harmful information extortion or blackmail, the element of the offense is the threat. Ultimately, the person who is the target of the threat must conduct a risk assessment to determine the level of harm that the threat can potentially have if the payment (whether it be money, goods or service) is not met.

What decision is sold? The decision to tell or not to tell is based solely on obtaining payment. The blackmailer is not selling a decision, rather is selling the threat of exposure. I get the feeling that inBOIL is confusing (and please correct me if I am wrong.) the selling of information versus the consequence of public knowledge. The immorality is not the possession of the information, rather the threat of exposing that information for personal gain.

__________________
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

jewels

So you want to pick and choose what you can get paid to keep secret? You play judge and jury of what's morally right (you may disclose this information), yet you think it's moral to collect money for your righteous behavior?

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

lktknow

why is it wrong?

for one thing, it can get you killed.

__________________
Never give up on something that you can’t go a day without thinking about. ~

inBOIL

Of course blackmail is wrong if the act of revealing the information is wrong. If you have no right to tell a woman that her husband is cheating on her, then blackmailing the husband would also be wrong. But I disagree that doing something that causes grief/pain is necessarily wrong. If I call someone an asshole, that causes pain, but it's not wrong. Similarly, I don't see how it's wrong to reveal, without a blackmail attempt, that someone is cheating on their spouse. If most people do see that as wrong, then perhaps that was a poor example to use.
I'm not talking about selling the information itself, but rather the decision of whether to reveal that information. In my example, the blackmailer sells to the cheating husband the decision of whether or not the wife hears about his infidelity.
How is that morally different from choosing what you keep secret? Why does the addition of getting paid make it wrong?

The issue I'm getting at (and may have failed to properly convey) is: If you have a choice, and both options are morally acceptable, (i.e. you have the moral right to reveal information without a blackmail attempt, and you have a moral right to withhold that information without a blackmail attempt) then why is an attempt to profit from that situation wrong?

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

Mephex

Is it not immoral to witness a crime and not do anything about it ?
Think about the illegal activity you may be aware/unaware of around you on a daily basis.

Whose right? No, whose moral obligation is it to reveal that information ? Are we talking about blackmail or snitching ?

My point is that blackmail is illegal to protect people who lead a legitimate life (immoral meaning less and less), and are attempting to prevent any harm done to them.

Whether things are immoral or not is a slippery slope.

__________________
He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country.
There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.
-Samuel Adams

Soto

What I get from this is basically an "eye for an eye" type deal. If someone does bad to you then it should be ok for you to do something bad to them of an "equal or lesser value". I believe this is why we have a court system where it is there duty to make us "whole" again. If your intent is to come out ahead and be malicious to someone because they beat you in something without cheating then I believe it is wrong. But this is a whole different story.

I suppose blackmail can be validated if its for the good of the community...

But no matter what blackmail would be hard to justify

Say a little league coach is a convicted sex offender, a pedophile....

You: Coach, I know about your past....

Coach: Well...what do you want?

You guys agree on a sum of money that goes in your pocket...How is that not wrong?

Not only did you take the guys hard earned money but you left the children in the same dangerous situation they were in before.