I don’t hypothetically intend to Blackmail anyone.
I’m going to divide the world into four types:
[ol]
[li]Government Agents (Cops, CCRA agents, etc)[/li][li]Workers/Board members, etc of Publicly Traded companies[/li][li]Private Individuals[/li][li]Owners of Sole proprietorships/Partnerships[/li][/ol]
I would expect that hypothetically blackmailing 1 and 2 in the course of their duties would be illegal.
But do I have Free Reign to blackmail 3 and 4 (as well as 1 and 2 when they are acting as 3 & 4)? Assume that the blackmail material is not illegal.
e.g.:
Hypothetically: I catch someone boinking someone who is not their wife. I want money. Can I go up to the guy (later on when he is finished), show him the pictures (taken from off the boinkette’s property, through an open window – this should be a legal way to get hypothetical blackmail material) and try to get him to give me money?
Is there a limit to the amount of hypothetical monopoly money I can get out of a boinker before it becomes illegal?
What if [the hypothetical actor] decides that I really don’t like the guy, and shows the pictures to his wife after getting her husband’s money; has [the hypothetical actor] done anything illegal?
All of the above is hypothetical.
Thanks
Oh, one more thing, any jusidiction will do, but I’m in Canada/Saskatchewan.
Blackmail is illegal, no matter who is the target, or what the big secret is.
If the person has a morbid fear that people will find out he is bald, and you blackmail hime with a photo of his bald pate, the fact that everyone in town thinks that he has a squirrel glued to his head doesn’t change the fact that you are a criminal.
That sounds like a Kids in the Hall sketch, but regardless, how do various jurisdictions define “blackmail”? Certainly they can’t just nix any kind of “If you don’t do A, we do B” contract clause, so does it only apply to things outside the scope of enforceable contracts?
Remember that the US Code is federal law; most crimes are defined by the states in the US. So federal law may be a start, but it doesn’t answer whether certain activity is criminal. For example, in California, blackmail is a form of extortion, and extortion is defined as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, … induced by a wrongful use of force or fear…” (Cal. Pen. Code 518.)
“Fear” is defined by the Code:
Consequently, in the situation posed in the OP, the “hypothetical actor” likely has committed extortion. This ignores, of course, his civil liability.
I know nothing about Canadian law, and therefore must page my eminent colleague, Northern Piper.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t a large portion of civil settlements involve some sort of non-disclosure agreement on the part of the plantiff. Basically they agree not to take the actions that led to their tort all over the media in exchange for cash.
The section you quote is Coercion, in which the blackmailer seeks to get the victim to do something (or refrain from doing something) because of a threat.
Extortion, where the blackmailer seeks to get money or property because of a threat, is defined in New York Penal Law section 155.05(e) to be a form of larceny:
Larceny is Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, a Class E Felony, when “property, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion.” It is Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a Class D Felony, if the value of the property extorted exceeds $3,000. The crime escalates to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a Class C Felony if either the value of the property exceeds $50,000, or: “The property, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion committed by instilling in the victim a fear that the actor or another person will (a) cause physical injury to some person in the future, or (b) cause damage to property, or (c) use or abuse his position as a public servant by engaging in conduct within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.” It becomes Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a Class B Felony, when the value of the property exceeds [insert Dr. Evil gesture] one million dollars.
Wasn’t there a guy recently jailed for requesting money from some actress or else he would publish the nude pics he legally took of her? Nude pictures aren’t illegal.
Also some woman recently was in trouble for requesting money from Sir William H. Cosby, Esq. PhD, DVM, DVD. because she claimed she was his daughter- what crime is that? If she really is his daughter, she deserves it, if not, where was the harm?
You have the right to control how your image & likeness is used. The photographer needs the actress’ permission to publish those photos. Demanding money to not publish them is a classic, texbook example of blackmail.
Assuming she’s an adult, she doesn’t have a right to squadoo from Cosby. Acknowledging her would be the right thing for Cosby to do, (assuming it’s true) but it’s not a legal requirement. She could probably sue to prove paternity, but “requesting” money because she says she’s Cosby’s illegitimate daughter is blackmail. Such an accusation could cause someone’s marriage to fall apart, for example, and even if it didn’t it would be sure to cause family strife.
Assuming this is a nice hypothetical discussion and not meant to give any legal advice, under Canadian law there is the federal crime of extortion: Criminal Code, s. 346:
To respond to the OP, you’ll see it doesn’t distinguish between different types of victims. Since the criminal law is a matter of federal jurisdiction, this is the offence that applies throughout Canada.
The actress was Cameron Diaz and the photographer was John Rutter. Rutter claimed that he had a model release form signed by Diaz which gave him the right to publish the photos (which were topless not full nude). He also claimed that as a “courtesy” he offered to sell them to her first before putting them on the open market. Diaz decided this was extortion and convinced the police to arrest Rutter.
Rutter’s defense fell apart when it was found that the signature on the release form was a forgery. Rutter claimed that his former assistant had handled all his paperwork and he had assumed it was an authentic signature but he was found guilty and sent to prison.
In my personal opinion, Rutter was railroaded. From a legal standpoint, the worst crime he was proven to have committed was to have not obtained an authentic signature on a model release form - hardly a crime deserving almost four years of imprisonment. And even if Rutter had knowingly falsified Diaz’ signature, nobody was disputing that Diaz in turn had knowingly posed for the original photos - it wasn’t like Rutter had been snapping pictures through her bedroom window. Rutter may have been sleazy but Diaz was an adult and should have taken some responsibility for her own actions.
Diaz tried to portray herself as the blameless victim of a crime. But she had voluntarily posed for the topless photos so they wouldn’t have existed without her co-operation.
No one is suggesting that Diaz didn’t willingly pose for the photos. There is a difference between posing for photos and posing for photos and giving permission for those photos to be published. She did not give permission for the photos to be published, so when money was demanded of her in exhange for giving her the chance to prevent publication of photos that she never agrred to allow to be published, she became the blameless victim of that crime. The idea that Diaz is somehow ducking her responsibility for posing topless because she refused to accede to a blackmailer is bizarre.
Interestingly, this is an issue that’s come up before. Some people argue that settlement agreements that include a non-disclosure provision are against public policy, at least in areas like product liability or toxic tort. They argue that courts shouldn’t enforce provisions like that because it stifles the public’s ability to learn about the purportedly dangerous product. And they argue that conditioning settlement – or paying for silence – is a form of blackmail. I haven’t been able to find any of the relevant articles, but they’re pretty interesting arguments.
Got it. But what about this scenario- would it be illegal?
Same photog has same topless photos. Tells Diaz “I can’t publish these because I don’t have your permission. I have no plans on ever letting anyone view them in any form. But I am short on rent money and if you would like to buy them, I am willing to sell them to you. If you chose not to buy them, I will put them in a desk drawer and never pull them out again.”?
