Letterman screws staffers, saves $2million

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bit more complicated than that (rah is closer on point than Asher). One reason is that it is harder to enforce any contract involving blackmail, simply because of the nature of the act.

it's illegal because it makes it easier to keep bad behavior hidden

Couldn't you argue quite the opposite? With laws against blackmail, it makes people want to go to the press more?

[Solomwi]

Bit more complicated than that (rah is closer on point than Asher). One reason is that it is harder to enforce any contract involving blackmail, simply because of the nature of the act.

I don't see why the nature of the act makes it harder to enforce. It can't be that an action to enforce the K would bring the information to light. The only possible breach by the party selling his silence is disclosing the information. Aside from that, isn't it just a K where A pays B not to exercise some legal right B has? We enforce Ks like that every day (hence my question about settlements).

Couldn't you argue quite the opposite? With laws against blackmail, it makes people want to go to the press more?

That holds water, but note that I was just suggesting another step to a non-answer. Politicians constantly focus on the first order effects (or what they should be) of legislation, without regard for less visible effects.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mostly because of "protecting sources" and whatnot (it'd basically require every paper to reveal their source, every time, if there is a blackmail contract regarding that act - otherwise the guy could claim that it wasn't him). Abstractly it seems like other things, but practically, it's far different (as newspapers tend to be very, very big on protecting their sources).

[Solomwi]

Mostly because of "protecting sources" and whatnot (it'd basically require every paper to reveal their source, every time, if there is a blackmail contract regarding that act - otherwise the guy could claim that it wasn't him). Abstractly it seems like other things, but practically, it's far different (as newspapers tend to be very, very big on protecting their sources).

I don't see that as a problem. If the paper isn't going to do enough due diligence to find out that its source sold his rights to the story, it deserves to have to reveal its source. Another approach is that we could absolutely shield papers from disclosure, and within about five minutes, every blackmail contract drafted would make it irrelevant who disclosed the information.

[-Jrabbit]

Letterman has finessed this whole thing beautifully. Everyone is talking about how well he handled the extortion attempt, and no one seems at all upset by the pattern of sexual harassment in the workplace. Indeed, it's barely been mentioned.

[Guynemer]

Maybe there is no harassment; maybe the ladies just find him irresistable.

[Solomwi]

Ladies love the tooth gap.

[-Jrabbit]

I don't presume to judge whether this was in fact sexual harassment. Just saying it's interesting that the media is turning a blind eye to that potentially juicy side of the story.

[Asher]

Pun intended?

[-Jrabbit]

Always.




I mean, no, what are you talking about?

[Drake Tungsten]

"If you came here tonight for sex with a talk show host, you've got the wrong studio." - Jay Leno

[Wezil]

Letterman has finessed this whole thing beautifully. Everyone is talking about how well he handled the extortion attempt, and no one seems at all upset by the pattern of sexual harassment in the workplace. Indeed, it's barely been mentioned.

I agree. So far it has gone very well for him.

The only problem on the horizon that I can see would be if the women involved start popping up in media interviews. Dave is on the wrong network for that type of press.

[DinoDoc]

"If you came here tonight for sex with a talk show host, you've got the wrong studio." - Jay Leno

Leno can't help but beat Dave even at jokes.

[Wezil]

Zing!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Leno can't help but beat Dave even at jokes.

Since when?

Don't tell me you think Leno is funnier than Letterman...