DISCLAIMER: THIS IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL. NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED TO ME
Let’s say I get a message in my e-mail in-box. It’s from Senator Such-n-such, addressed to his eighteen-year-old paramour. I got the message because he typed in a wrong character in the e-mail address. Amid sweet nothings and passionate verse, he asks her to meet him at a secret rendezvous.
I e-mail the good senator back and tell him thanks-but-no-thanks, and by the way, this e-mail is going to the press. He e-mails me back and offers $1,000,000 to forget I ever read any e-mail from him.
If I take the money, am I guilty of blackmail? Assuming I could save the e-mail exchanges and present them in court, would the judge still hold me accountable?
What if the senator’s intended was underage? If I didn’t go to the police with the information, would I be guilty of aiding & abetting?
Blackmail usually requires an attempt to get something. It doesn’t necessarily have to be money. If you agree not to report a felony in exchange for something of value, some jurisdictions call this compounding a felony. *E.g., *
Assuming you didn’t suggest the payment, then you’re not guilty of extortion, which is generally the crime that is referred to by “blackmail”.
That would be a hard thing to prove, since the circumstances suggest an inference of extortion, but in order to complete the crime of extortion in this scenario, you must:
(1) Wrongfully,
(2) threaten to,
(3) inflict harm to his reputation
(4) unless money is paid.
You never completed element 2, so extortion is out. But threats don’t have to be explicit. Even something as simple as, “So, Senator, I’ll be disclosing this information to the press later today, which gives you time to respond to me if you wish,” could be considered as presenting the “unless” threat.
Pretty risky, if you ask me.
As a general rule, you’re in the clear if you simply fail to report the crime. Unless you have some special status that requires you to report abuse of juveniles, or some other situation imposes upon you a duty to report, you may generally simply ignore the situation.
This is intended as a hypothetical response to your hypothetical question, and NOT as legal advice. I’m not your lawyer, and you are not my client. Do not rely on this for an accurate statement of the law, which can vary dramatically from state to state. For legal advice, consult an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
Occasional glances at reports on the recent Cameron Diaz kerfluffle suggest to me that this is an area that needs revisiting.
Let’s say that my high school girlfriend Betty becomes the next Hollywood It Girl, or possibly Supreme Court nominee. Let’s also say that I’ve got some rather compromising photos I took of her when we were on good terms – photgraphs taken with her consent, by me, which I paid to develop. Because I have no soul (and because she not only dumped me, but told everyone in my graduating class that I cry during sex), I see this as an opportunity to cash in.
I call the Weekly World News and get an offer for five grand for the pictures. I then call the Enquirer and tell them about WWN’s offer – they offer six grand. Then WWN offers eight, and the Enquirer 10. Can I then call Betty and ask her to beat that price? I think under the blackmail laws (California’s, anyway), I cannot. But Betty would happily pay to keep the whole thing quiet.
In this situation I see nothing morally wrong with offering or accepting such a deal. Now, if the pics were contraband, or evidence of a crime, obviously that’s a different matter. But in the hypo, they’re perfectly legal, and unequivocally my property. Furthermore, I’m not asking Betty for “extortionate” prices, but rather to pay the established FMV. This should be a legal act, because it allows me to get the market value of the goods I posses while still allowing the subject an opportunity to maintain a reputation that is worth something to her – if it’s not worth the cost, she does not have to pay it. I think the law as it stands creates perverse incentives – it demands that we bring down bad publicity instead of giving someone who wants to pay for silence an opportunity to do so.
I’m not as sure about that as you. Reviewing the statute as posted here:
The only possible provisions that apply would be “to expose…any…disgrace” or “to expose any secret affecting him or them.” What secret would be exposed? The existence of the pictures? Is it a secret if Betty you, WWN and NE all know about them? That Betty had sex in high school? Does that rise to the level of “secret” as defined by the statute? As for “disgrace,” is a court in 2005 going to consider revealing that some star has naked pictures from high school a “disgrace” per the statute? I’d find that kind of hard to believe.
I didn’t follow the Diaz case closely, but I thought the issue there was that the photographer forged a release, not that he was asking for money.
Should we assume for the purposes of your hypo that Betty was at least 18 when you started dating and clicking? Because if not, you would have committed a terrible crime.
(I agree with you, by the way.)
OK, change the OP so that it’s Benjy, not Betty. Or maybe in the pictures we were engaging in fetish play of some kind. I think the hypo’s malleable to cover your objection.
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that my hypo was a translation of the Diaz case, but I believe those issues were present if, as he claimed, the photog’s release was valid.
Actually, I’m ignoring the distinction between owning (perfectly legal) photographs and right of publicity issues that, at least in some states, might apply and limit the photographer’s ability to publish those photos without the subject’s consent.
“might” and “limit”, I said. In the supreme court nominee scenario, you’d probably be in the clear on the right of publicity issue for at least two reasons that come to mind.
I believe he was trying to address your (implied) point that having (heterosexual)
sex in high school wouldn’t be considered a deep, dark secret by most people these days.
Unfortunately, in most U .S. political districts, evidence of homosexual acts would be a political liability. I don’t think anyone (Cliffy, me or anyone else) is implying that it should be that way, whether the sexual act is in high school or otherwise, but we recognize that it is.
