Legalize Blackmail?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Mar 9 2010, 01:01 PM
An interesting discussion has emerged from The Evangelical Outpost on whether or not blackmail should be legalized. Although Joe Carter, the blogger who posted the argument, believes it is still a sin, he asks why two actions, revealing public information and asking for money, should be a criminal act in light of the fact that by themselves, they are perfectly legal. 
It appears he was prompted to ask this strange question because of discussions with"Christian Libertarians":
QUOTE
Would a Christian libertarian also argue in favor decriminalizing the practice? The reason I ask is because one the main complaints I have with most libertarians is that they often work backwards from a grievance to the development of their core beliefs. Christians, on the other hand, must start with Biblical principles and work their way to a coherent political philosophy.
I'm wracking my brain to figure out the Biblical principle that makes it a sin. All I can come up with is that trying to use another's wrong doings to gain monetary compensation is bad character, and bad character is sinful. I'm sure the answer is staring me in the face. Maybe one of my two loyal readers can help me out.
What I'm pretty sure of, however, is that I can't think of a single reason why blackmail should be illegal. It's illegal for you to demand money in return for not telling a man's wife that he cheated on her. Without the demand for money, your telling her would be perfectly legal. Asking for money would be legal as well. But put the two together and you have an illegal act.
I'm asking if it should be against man's law. Either way, I don't think it changes my opinion of those who engage in it.
What do you think?
My Mind is Clean.
Comments
Mr. Naron, Mar 9 2010, 01:37 PM
QUOTE (USNJIMRET @ Mar 9 2010, 10:27 AM)
Coercing a behavioral change in another is wrong.
Even if the behavior is wrong.
And it doesn't matter what 'force' it is that is used to coerce the change. Money, or threatening to tell the wife, or publicly humiliating the person, all the same to me.
Convincing, educating,even preventing wrong behavior is different.
The end result might be the same, no more of the bad behavior, but the use of coercive force is, IMO, wrong.
Wrong from a Christian POV-again IMO, is a sin.
Not the biggest of sins, but a sin none the less.
JMO
Even if the behavior is wrong.
And it doesn't matter what 'force' it is that is used to coerce the change. Money, or threatening to tell the wife, or publicly humiliating the person, all the same to me.
Convincing, educating,even preventing wrong behavior is different.
The end result might be the same, no more of the bad behavior, but the use of coercive force is, IMO, wrong.
Wrong from a Christian POV-again IMO, is a sin.
Not the biggest of sins, but a sin none the less.
JMO
I don't think a blackmailer cares one way or another if their victim changes behavior. Heck, one could make a living off someone who refuses to change his behavior and has deep pockets.
I also disagree about coercing behavioral change being wrong. We do it all the time. If we're talking specifically about adultery, I'd agree in most cases. However, I don't think public humiliation is a form of coercion. I think we could use a lot more shame in our culture, actually.
![]()
MInTheGap, Mar 9 2010, 02:52 PM
I think it's close to gossip or speaking words that do not build up. As Christians we're to edify one another.
USNJIMRET, Mar 9 2010, 03:27 PM
QUOTE (Mr. Naron @ Mar 9 2010, 11:37 AM)
I don't think a blackmailer cares one way or another if their victim changes behavior. Heck, one could make a living off someone who refuses to change his behavior and has deep pockets.
I also disagree about coercing behavioral change being wrong. We do it all the time. If we're talking specifically about adultery, I'd agree in most cases. However, I don't think public humiliation is a form of coercion. I think we could use a lot more shame in our culture, actually.
I also disagree about coercing behavioral change being wrong. We do it all the time. If we're talking specifically about adultery, I'd agree in most cases. However, I don't think public humiliation is a form of coercion. I think we could use a lot more shame in our culture, actually.
But your question has to do with society as a whole, through the application of legislative statute, declaring something allowable or not allowable (legal or illegal).
The "care" factor of the blackmailer isn't the issue.
Or it shouldn't be, EVER when a society, through the legislative process, is setting the rules.
I personally have no problem at all with various law enforcement efforts to bring public shame upon 'marks' of prostitution. Many times across the country, local law enforcement will publish the names and photos of prostitution 'customers' in the local paper or on a website. (Although I personally don't have a valid intellectual argument as to why prostitution shouldn't be like in Nevada. Regulated and managed in such as way as to reduce the chance of disease or crime.) Likewise, I know that several State Child Protective Agencies, and their Enforcement arms, have web site mini-bio's of dead beat parents who owe their ex or children back child support. Again, I have no problem with these two specific instances, because they are legally approved methods of, yes, coercive, efforts to modify a behavior. Although to be honest, that's a bit of a twisted way to describe the action desired. Refusing to pay court ordered Child Support is usually, tho not always by any means, not something defensible by the dead beat.
All in all, I would be against the general concept of what we generally understand as 'blackmail'. Mostly because the threat to reveal some behavior of someone, which might very well NOT be illegal in any respect, but for other reasons a public humiliation or embarrassment, should NEVER be something that the blackmailer knows has no negative consequence beyond failure to get money.
Mr. Naron, Mar 9 2010, 03:28 PM
QUOTE (MInTheGap @ Mar 9 2010, 11:52 AM)
I think it's close to gossip or speaking words that do not build up. As Christians we're to edify one another.
That's as close as I got. Still, one would think there would be a specific admonition.
BTW, it's been a while. How've you been?
Mr. Naron, Mar 9 2010, 03:35 PM
QUOTE (USNJIMRET @ Mar 9 2010, 12:27 PM)
QUOTE (Mr. Naron @ Mar 9 2010, 11:37 AM)
I don't think a blackmailer cares one way or another if their victim changes behavior. Heck, one could make a living off someone who refuses to change his behavior and has deep pockets.
I also disagree about coercing behavioral change being wrong. We do it all the time. If we're talking specifically about adultery, I'd agree in most cases. However, I don't think public humiliation is a form of coercion. I think we could use a lot more shame in our culture, actually.
I also disagree about coercing behavioral change being wrong. We do it all the time. If we're talking specifically about adultery, I'd agree in most cases. However, I don't think public humiliation is a form of coercion. I think we could use a lot more shame in our culture, actually.
But your question has to do with society as a whole, through the application of legislative statute, declaring something allowable or not allowable (legal or illegal).
The "care" factor of the blackmailer isn't the issue.
Or it shouldn't be, EVER when a society, through the legislative process, is setting the rules.
I personally have no problem at all with various law enforcement efforts to bring public shame upon 'marks' of prostitution. Many times across the country, local law enforcement will publish the names and photos of prostitution 'customers' in the local paper or on a website. (Although I personally don't have a valid intellectual argument as to why prostitution shouldn't be like in Nevada. Regulated and managed in such as way as to reduce the chance of disease or crime.) Likewise, I know that several State Child Protective Agencies, and their Enforcement arms, have web site mini-bio's of dead beat parents who owe their ex or children back child support. Again, I have no problem with these two specific instances, because they are legally approved methods of, yes, coercive, efforts to modify a behavior. Although to be honest, that's a bit of a twisted way to describe the action desired. Refusing to pay court ordered Child Support is usually, tho not always by any means, not something defensible by the dead beat.
All in all, I would be against the general concept of what we generally understand as 'blackmail'. Mostly because the threat to reveal some behavior of someone, which might very well NOT be illegal in any respect, but for other reasons a public humiliation or embarrassment, should NEVER be something that the blackmailer knows has no negative consequence beyond failure to get money.
It's not an issue as far as my original post, I agree. I was just disagreeing with your assertion that the purpose of blackmailing a person was to coerce that person to change his behavior. I can't imagine a situation where a blackmailer would want their victim to change.
As for the legislative process, what do you think was the issue when they decided to make blackmail illegal? It seems to me--and I'm just spitballing here--that the only ones so concerned about being blackmailed that they would go to all the trouble of making it illegal are the ones who might have reasons for being blackmailed in the first place.
(IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/erst060.gif)
USNJIMRET, Mar 9 2010, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (Mr. Naron @ Mar 9 2010, 01:35 PM)
It's not an issue as far as my original post, I agree. I was just disagreeing with your assertion that the purpose of blackmailing a person was to coerce that person to change his behavior. I can't imagine a situation where a blackmailer would want their victim to change.
As for the legislative process, what do you think was the issue when they decided to make blackmail illegal? It seems to me--and I'm just spitballing here--that the only ones so concerned about being blackmailed that they would go to all the trouble of making it illegal are the ones who might have reasons for being blackmailed in the first place.
(IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/erst060.gif)
As for the legislative process, what do you think was the issue when they decided to make blackmail illegal? It seems to me--and I'm just spitballing here--that the only ones so concerned about being blackmailed that they would go to all the trouble of making it illegal are the ones who might have reasons for being blackmailed in the first place.
(IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/erst060.gif)
First, I have no idea who "they" might have been.
Blackmail as an illegal activity isn't something that came along in my lifetime, having been previously "OK" prior to that.
It's my uneducated guess that the very term "blackmail" is, if not ancient, damned old as a defined term. A term that closely matches current definitions.
Also, I would have little more to offer the speculation as to what event, or events, took place that resulted in some authority or other deciding that the practice was illegal.
Still, the premise, or what I took to be the premise, of the original question on this thread was should the idea of legalized blackmail be one worthy of serious consideration.
To which my answer was, and remains, No.
Mr. Naron, Mar 9 2010, 07:01 PM
QUOTE (USNJIMRET @ Mar 9 2010, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mr. Naron @ Mar 9 2010, 01:35 PM)
It's not an issue as far as my original post, I agree. I was just disagreeing with your assertion that the purpose of blackmailing a person was to coerce that person to change his behavior. I can't imagine a situation where a blackmailer would want their victim to change.
As for the legislative process, what do you think was the issue when they decided to make blackmail illegal? It seems to me--and I'm just spitballing here--that the only ones so concerned about being blackmailed that they would go to all the trouble of making it illegal are the ones who might have reasons for being blackmailed in the first place.
(IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/erst060.gif)
As for the legislative process, what do you think was the issue when they decided to make blackmail illegal? It seems to me--and I'm just spitballing here--that the only ones so concerned about being blackmailed that they would go to all the trouble of making it illegal are the ones who might have reasons for being blackmailed in the first place.
(IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/erst060.gif)
First, I have no idea who "they" might have been.
Blackmail as an illegal activity isn't something that came along in my lifetime, having been previously "OK" prior to that.
It's my uneducated guess that the very term "blackmail" is, if not ancient, damned old as a defined term. A term that closely matches current definitions.
Also, I would have little more to offer the speculation as to what event, or events, took place that resulted in some authority or other deciding that the practice was illegal.
Still, the premise, or what I took to be the premise, of the original question on this thread was should the idea of legalized blackmail be one worthy of serious consideration.
To which my answer was, and remains, No.
Does it matter who "they" were? Lawmakers in every state. British judges or MPs. Whoever made the laws. I haven't been able to find any good info on who came up with the idea. The best I can tell, there were extortion rackets on the border of Scotland and England and eventually, the laws against extortion came to include what we today call blackmail.
I think it is a worthy consideration not because I want to get busy threatening people and collecting my reward but because I like to know the origins of laws that don't have clear justifications.
Don't get me started on polygamy. (IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)
Adam Smithee, Mar 10 2010, 11:02 AM
QUOTE
An interesting discussion has emerged from The Evangelical Outpost on whether or not blackmail should be legalized. Although Joe Carter, the blogger who posted the argument, believes it is still a sin, he asks why two actions, revealing public information and asking for money, should be a criminal act in light of the fact that by themselves, they are perfectly legal.
Biblically, it goes against the "shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" commandment (Ex 20:16). Hiding the truth about someone is, in effect, the same as lying about them, even if the net result is in their favor.
And per the quoted part, it's not necessarily true that either element by itself is perfectly legal, although the crime is in the keeping of the secret rather than the revelation of it. Legally, the person who has knowledge of anorther's guilt but keeps it a secret is an "accessory after the fact" even if their is no blackmail involved per se.
Mr. Naron, Mar 10 2010, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (Adam Smithee @ Mar 10 2010, 08:02 AM)
Biblically, it goes against the "shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" commandment (Ex 20:16). Hiding the truth about someone is, in effect, the same as lying about them, even if the net result is in their favor.
I disagree. You're only talking about when a crime has been committed. Otherwise the Bible wouldn't warn us about gossip.
QUOTE
And per the quoted part, it's not necessarily true that either element by itself is perfectly legal, although the crime is in the keeping of the secret rather than the revelation of it. Legally, the person who has knowledge of anorther's guilt but keeps it a secret is an "accessory after the fact" even if their is no blackmail involved per se.
Now you're being too general. A crime is not always the subject of the blackmail. Often it's just something that a person doesn't want others to know.
![]()
Guest, May 22 2010, 02:46 AM
EDhardy
Men
Men Apparel
Men Shorts
Men Hoodies
Men Tank
Men Briefs
Men Denim
Men New Arrive
Men Pants
Men Polo
Men Tee
Men Sweater & Knits
Men Accessories
Men Watches
Men Tie
Men Bag
Men Sunglasses
Men Socks
Men Belt
Men Scarf
Men Shoes
Men Sandal
Men Wristband
Women
Women Accessories
Women Socks
Women Scarf
Women Belt
Women Bags&Purse
Women Wristbands
Women Watch
Women Sunglass
Women Apparel
Women Tee
Women Dresses
Women Denim
Women Shorts
Women Pants
Women Hoodies
Women Bottom
Women Swimming
Knits & Tops
Women Tank
Caps
Women Caps
Men Caps
Men
Men Apparel
Men Shorts
Men Hoodies
Men Tank
Men Briefs
Men Denim
Men New Arrive
Men Pants
Men Polo
Men Tee
Men Sweater & Knits
Men Accessories
Men Watches
Men Tie
Men Bag
Men Sunglasses
Men Socks
Men Belt
Men Scarf
Men Shoes
Men Sandal
Men Wristband
Women
Women Accessories
Women Socks
Women Scarf
Women Belt
Women Bags&Purse
Women Wristbands
Women Watch
Women Sunglass
Women Apparel
Women Tee
Women Dresses
Women Denim
Women Shorts
Women Pants
Women Hoodies
Women Bottom
Women Swimming
Knits & Tops
Women Tank
Caps
Women Caps
Men Caps
Even if the behavior is wrong.
And it doesn't matter what 'force' it is that is used to coerce the change. Money, or threatening to tell the wife, or publicly humiliating the person, all the same to me.
Convincing, educating,even preventing wrong behavior is different.
The end result might be the same, no more of the bad behavior, but the use of coercive force is, IMO, wrong.
Wrong from a Christian POV-again IMO, is a sin.
Not the biggest of sins, but a sin none the less.
JMO