Talk:Blackmail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added to expand definition - In other instances, the blackmail may be threatening or damaging to one's reputation even without evidence; so as long as, the act of blackmail produce the desire result, "See Also" and "External Link" categories into article to avoid being stubbed. Paradigmbuff 18:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Made a number of edits to tighten this article and remove confusing language. Among my changes was removal of the sentence added by the user above, which I could not understand. Perhaps someone would like to try a rewritten version of it? (added Aug. 22, 2005)

Contents

[edit] Word Origin

I question the origin of the word as described here. It is apparently a dialectical corruption of "black meal". I think reditus nigri is a back formation. See http://www.nwlink.com/~scotlass/border.htm. Why we have the French blanche firmes mentioned is beyond me? Jooler 02:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary 2nd Ed by Roger Bird (Sweet & Maxwell) 1983 gives substantially the same defintion (i.e. reditus nigri from the Scottish borders) Avalon 21:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a whole bunch of stuff over the internet attributing "Blackmail" to "Black meal". The two are not mutually exclusive, as the latin simply denotes the circumstances of the transaction, whereas "black meal" denotes the actual payment itself. Dave420 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy question

I don't think the maximum penalty for blackmail is life. According to The Theft Act 1968 (http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Property%20Offences/TA%201968.pdf) Section 21, it's 14 years. Or has this been amended? 81.109.83.123 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Steve G

[edit] "substantially true"?

In the opening paragraph we have the statement that includes "revealing information that is substantially true". I have heard of instances of blackmail whereas the information being revealed is completely false but would still resonate as true if revealed publically. Such an instance is with actor Louie Anderson, see his article. I request to change this to "revealing information that may or may not be accurate". Perhaps I'm mistaken in the fact that "substantially true" is how it is defined by law? Comments?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

why is it not illeagle to blackmail if you donot get what you want and release the data onto the net or use other Means of spreding the information?

That's illegal, too. Making the demand for payment is the illegal action, whether or not payment is made. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b105.htm "The criminality lies not in the release of the information - at least if true - but in the extortionate aspects of the threat to do so." Thomas Phinney 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime?

Why does the article say in the opening sentence that blackmail is a crime? I see nothing criminal about revealing "substantially true information about a person". This is surely pov and should be corrected or rewritten. Bob A 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the revelation, but the demand for money (or other compensation), that is criminal. The article goes on to give the precise laws that define blackmail. You may not see anything criminal about such conduct, but the law clearly thinks otherwise. See for example http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b105.htm "The criminality lies not in the release of the information - at least if true - but in the extortionate aspects of the threat to do so." Thomas Phinney 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not criminal because the "demand for money" is merely an offer of a contract for money in exchange for silence. If by "law" you mean not natural law, but some custom, then the article should be specific. Bob A 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

this is pscho

[edit] "Commercial blackmail" - Extortion, not blackmail?

Am I misinformed of my definitions, or are both of these (DDOS attacks, poisonings) forms of extortion, not blackmail? Bushytails (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)