I think Lemur is parodying post #7.
Thanks for remembering that.
Having blackmail be illegal makes the holder of the compromising information have to weigh whether they really care more about the truth coming out, or about shaking you down; and whether they are confident you can’t act to preempt it. And it makes the target weigh whether the potential for becoming beholden to the blackmailer forever is worse than having it come out anyway since it would likely involve a public trial.
If you’re Jeff Bezos and have the means to get ahead of the story and take control of the narrative or the Duke of Wellington and know that your standing is so solid the other party can go ahead and “publish and be damned”, you can just say transient embarassment is cheaper than handing out the cash. Because otherwise as they often say, participating in the cover-up makes it look worse.
OTOH, think of the person who is not in that position, who, if defending against blackmail, knows that creates a higher likelihood that the information will come out for the record… and *ruin *them. Cost them their employment (current and future), their family life, their place in the community, or a combination thereof. Does that person keep paying up for life? Does that person then become unable even to choose a career move towards lesser visibility, because of the blackmailer’s expectations?
Let’s go further: never mind nude photos or salacious stories of infidelities or “outing”. What if the object of blackmail is information that the targeted person did something you and I believe is worthy of negative consequences and opprobrium. What then? Does our interest in exposing him/her outweigh now our interest in not encouraging blackmail? Do we condemn the blackmailer for helping cover it up? I suppose there are those who believe that in such cases, some degree of “blame the victim” is fair game because the target, after all, did do something wrong they want to hide.
Everyone’s assuming the mark is someone who’s done something immoral or illegal, but that’s not always the case.
Say “Johnny’s” family is conservative and lives in a very conservative community. Johnny is gay but hasn’t come out yet. Or maybe he’s a secret cross-dresser whose family would never understand and who’d be ostracized if word got out. I can’t see that it’s OK for someone to use Johnny’s sexuality or dress preferences to make big bucks.
Or here’s another example: A. cheats on her new husband and shortly thereafter finds she’s pregnant. It could be her husband’s child, or it might not. Some years later, the husband dies. Their son, C., who had a close relationship with his dad, is mentally fragile. B. finds out about the parentage issue and says, “If you don’t give me money you can ill-afford every time I ask for it, I’m going to tell C. the dad he worshipped wasn’t his real father!”
Let’s not assume all involved are unethical. Sometimes only the blackmailer is.
It is illegal. In the case you cite the provability will be the issue.
Just because someone breaks the law, doesn’t mean he/she can be prosecuted for it.
You need evidence to present to a jury.
There’s also the deterrent factor - knowing that blackmail is illegal probably discourages a rather large number of people from doing it.
That doesn’t mean everyone obeys the law, but that’s not the test of whether a law is necessary or effective. If fewer people commit blackmail because of laws against blackmail, that’s probably enough justification for the law.
Welcome to civilzed society. We have rules against murder because a much larger proportion of people don’t want to get murdered than want to murder someone. We have rules against theft because the vast majority of people want to keep their stuff rather than be allowed to take someone else’s. And we have do not call lists and laws against blackmail because the vast majority of people don’t like either being interrupted at dinner and like their privacy.
It is largely about using certain types of information in the way that best benefits society.
If you find out that Bob is cheating on his wife Mary, maybe you decide that the best situation is to tell Mary. Or maybe you think it is time to sit down and have a heart to heart with Bob. Or maybe you decide it is none of your business and do nothing.
Society gets the benefit of your reasoned decision as to what to do with that information and multiply this times millions across society. The correct response will largely play out and society will act as the majority of people deem appropriate.
If the information is sold to the highest bidder, then that decision making is skewed. Marriages could be unnecessarily destroyed. People would be incentivized to seek out this sort of dirt and others than have secrets would be deterred from talking about them. All so that some unseemly people can make a buck.
^And yet our president, a man we all look up to and admire, chose that route.
Knowing that blackmail exists deters people from engaging in antisocial behavior under cover of privacy. Especially people of means.
This is true. Should he be engaging in this type of behavior, though? It isn’t clear to me that this behavior is preferable to blackmail assuming the wife is not on board.
Hope isn’t much when dealing with a blackmailer.