Letterman screws staffers, saves $2million

[rah]

Where do you draw the line. You take a picture of a person that might give the appearance that they were gay. Then offer to take cash so you don't show it around his place of work. There's nothing the person could do. You aren't saying he's gay, you're just showing a picture without editorial content. There are just too many gray areas here that would be open if that type of behavior was legal.

[Solomwi]

Where do you draw the line. You take a picture of a person that might give the appearance that they were gay. Then offer to take cash so you don't show it around his place of work. There's nothing the person could do. You aren't saying he's gay, you're just showing a picture without editorial content. There are just too many gray areas here that would be open if that type of behavior was legal.

You draw the line based on the underlying act. That wouldn't be covered, as it's misappropriation. Even if it weren't, why is there nothing he could do? He could pay the money, or tell the guy to get bent.

Besides, what kind of picture can both make a straight person look gay convincingly and be "accidental" or a trick of the camera? If you don't want to have to buy pictures of yourself looking gay, keep the dicks out of your mouth around cameras.

[rah]

If you ask for cash to not do something that might harm someone, that's still blackmail and illegal. I don't see any difference here.

[Solomwi]

If you ask for cash to not do something that might harm someone, that's still blackmail and illegal. I don't see any difference here.

Not always. A plaintiff asks for cash not to continue her suit against a defendant. Continuing the suit is almost certain to harm the defendant. And we encourage that behavior, and encourage the defendant to pay up. Contrast that with, say, demanding payment not to blow up someone's house, and the difference should be clear: the blackmailer's legal right to do what he is offering to refrain from doing.

[rah]

As I said, there would be a lot of gray area. Showing a picture around work if not paid would clearly be blackmail in my book.

[Solomwi]

As I said, there would be a lot of gray area. Showing a picture around work if not paid would clearly be blackmail in my book.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing the picture up. Under a legal blackmail regime, it would depend on the picture. Is it an accurate depiction of you passed out nude in your own vomit on the sidewalk last Saturday night? Tough **** for putting yourself in that situation. Is it a masterful photoshop job that appears to be you having sex with Bob from Accounting's 14-year old daughter? That's false light, which means any attempt to blackmail you with it would still be illegal.

That said, there's gray area everywhere. In this case, gray areas can be addressed by changes in what underlying acts are illegal (note that I include acts that subject one to civil liability in the term illegal here). Why fear gray area that can be relatively easily firmed up?

[rah]

It doesn't have to be photoshoped. It could be an innocent picture that could be seen differently. It could be something shot through a telephoto lens from off your property. Shouldn't you be allowed some type of privacy. I think if 'BLACKMAIL" was legal, that this type of thing would run rampant. Not something I would like to see.

[Solomwi]

It doesn't have to be photoshoped. It could be an innocent picture that could be seen differently. It could be something shot through a telephoto lens from off your property. Shouldn't you be allowed some type of privacy. I think if 'BLACKMAIL" was legal, that this type of thing would run rampant. Not something I would like to see.

Of course you should be allowed some privacy. There's no reason that would change, since a demand based on any photo/etc. gained through invasion of someone's privacy would still be illegal blackmail (you don't have the legal right to invade the other person's privacy, ergo the underlying act of disclosing photos illegally obtained would not support a legal blackmail contract). For several reasons, I doubt the innocent picture that could be seen differently would present a big problem, certainly not so big that we have to tell people they'll go to jail for selling a perfectly legal right they own.

[rah]

I see we won't agree on this issue.
I believe there would be a field day for people digging up dirt on people to profit.
You don't seem to see a problem with that. (or don't see that happening)

Further discussion will not change our opinions.

[Solomwi]

You never did tell me why it's okay to settle a lawsuit, but all other demands for payment to refrain from doing something harmful need to remain illegal.

[rah]

I consider settling a lawsuit different because it is usually addressing a wrong between the two parties. Blackmail is one sided.