Both “paradoxes” are cited at The Futility Closet. The first is here, with a half-assed cite to “Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren”; the second onefrom today takes a quote from Walter Block et al., “The Second Paradox of Blackmail,” Business Ethics Quarterly, July 2000.
I. First “paradox:”
The article, and certainly the Futility website guy, says that a private contract to conceal information is legal but one not to reveal information, blackmail, is not. Hence “the blackmail paradox.”
II Second “paradox,” which seems the same damn thing, a restatement with the first in mind (I haven’t checked):
IANAL, but it seems to me the difference between blackmail and contract is the first is illegal “contracts” is due to compulsion, hence no contract at all. And that “bribery” means only illegal contracts, illegally enacted willingly but unenforceable in certain realms due to other laws giving what contracts may or may not be.
Giving my kid brother to spill his milk on the new rug is a legal crime only in the jurisdiction of Mom and Dad.
And switching from “contract” to "bribery and “blackmail” is not a paradox but slippery definitions that are used commutatively, which is a logic of wordplay, and is a fallacious one. There must be a name for that kind of rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
It is entirely likely that the statements in I and II are strawmen arguments in pedagogy or philosophy of law, and use the word knowingly–certainly the second article has it in its title. And Futility Closet, a kind of near-listicle website, is certainly into the grabber of the word and cites both law sources out of context to boot.
Which annoys me.
Anyway, could lawyers, logicians, and people in the bleachers weigh in here?