Letterman screws staffers, saves $2million

[Thoth]

I'd have sex with David Letterman for God's sake

Tramp.

[Lorizael]

Yeah, it just shows that if you're going to blackmail someone over sexual indiscretions, pick on republicans.

John Edwards did a pretty craptacular job of handling his sex scandal.

[Solomwi]

to Letterman.

That said, when the action being threatened is legal, should extortion/blackmail really be illegal?

[Wezil]

World Wide Pants

[Elok]

to Letterman.

That said, when the action being threatened is legal, should extortion/blackmail really be illegal?

Uh, yeah. If you rob someone under the threat of social shame, it's very different from robbing them with a weapon, but you're still robbing them.

[duke o' york]

So is 48 Hours going to do a recreation of the crime?

[Darius871]

Uh, yeah. If you rob someone under the threat of social shame, it's very different from robbing them with a weapon, but you're still robbing them.

Oh BS. Reputation is an intangible commodity on the free market and Letterman declined to exercise his right of first refusal, so the seller should have had an opportunity to approach other buyers. Are we going to go throw paparazi and copyright agents in the slammer too?

[rah]

If they try to extort hush money, Yes, I would hope we'd throw them in jail.
If this guy had sold his info to a scandal rag, it wouldn't have been illegal.

[-Jrabbit]

I suspect that part is yet to come.

[Wezil]

"Mr. Letterman addressed the issue during the show's broadcast this evening..."

[Darius871]

If this guy had sold his info to a scandal rag, it wouldn't have been illegal.

That's exactly my point. Why is it ok to sell the information to a scandal rag, but not ok to try "selling" to Letterman with a specified deadline, like any right of first refusal or call option?

[rah]

For a few reasons.
1. I doubt a paper would have given him 2 million dollars
2. For reason #1 it would encourage this type of thing, And in situations like this the paper gets to make the decision on the reliability of the source and the potential for any libel.
3. And maybe, for the common man, the public wouldn't care about so there would be little market for it. Can you imagine if blackmail was legal. Everyone would be running around spying on their neighbor. If you're rich and famous, it's easier to protect yourself from it.

[Darius871]

For a few reasons.
1. I doubt a paper would have given him 2 million dollars

Of course not; demand dictates price. Letterman might have valued the information more than the papers.

3. And maybe, for the common man, the public wouldn't care about so there would be little market for it. Can you imagine if blackmail was legal. Everyone would be running around spying on their neighbor. If you're rich and famous, it's easier to protect yourself from it.

If you don't like getting blackmailed, then don't do stupid **** or at least cover it up better. We're only talking about true information here. And there are laws against unreasonable invasion of privacy, so there's only so much "spying" that people would risk.

[Solomwi]

Darius is saying pretty much what I was thinking.

For rah and Elok: do you also think it should be illegal to settle lawsuits, regardless of merit?

[Solomwi]

Uh, yeah. If you rob someone under the threat of social shame, it's very different from robbing them with a weapon, but you're still robbing them.

How am I still robbing them? I'm merely making an offer not to do something I'm perfectly within my legal rights to do. The other person is free to reject that offer, as Letterman did.