Talk:Blackmail

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marwa14el, Rp8, Elluel, Marc XuZhou, Ajt174 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jaimedepaola, Cantstavwontstav. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Por2, Nehamakwana, Safa11998 (article contribs).

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)

The word mail is derived from the Gaelic mal, rent, tax, or tribute ; and mala, a bag, a sack, a purse, a budget to contain the tribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.152.117 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC) In that language, blathaich pro- nounced (the th silent) bld-aich signifies to protect, to cherish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.152.117 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Thus black-mail meant the tribute or tax of protection Charles Mackay Dic of Lowland Scots 1888 (archive.org)

Sources

The sources below were added by other users, James500 (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Theft Act 1968 (http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Property%20Offences/TA%201968.pdf) Section 21
• http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b105.htm says "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."
• Webster's defines blackmail as "extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution."
• Walter Block argues that blackmail/extortion should be decriminalized. He mentions that it is legal to 1) threaten someone with the disclosure of shameful information; and 2) ask someone for money (like a beggar would). The irony is that if you do both of these things together, then it is illegal. How can two things taken separately as legal be taken together as illegal? I agree with him mostly. However, I can think of drinking and driving as an example of 2 things taken separately as legal; but taken together as illegal. So I'm not wholly convinced by his argument. I like his 2nd argument about blackmailee precedence more.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/second_paradox.pdf Powerslide (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"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)

Blackmail Tiger Woods

I read in the Sun regarding Rachel Uchitel's alleged dalliance with Tiber Woods that, "...her lawyer Gloria Allred had been expected to make a statement admitting Rachel had an affair with Woods. But New York party planner Rachel dramatically cancelled the event, apparently after last-minute talks with the billionaire sportsman. One report said Rachel was negotiating a $1million "hush money" deal."

I have no idea whether the Newspaper's report is accurate or not and don't care, but I did wonder whether such negotiations would constitute blackmail, and if not, why not? This particular story is not the only instance where such negotiations are said to have occurred. It would be useful to have the article highlight the difference if any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

>> The cynical, and possibly true answer, is that it's not blackmail when your lawyer does it. Another possibility is that it simply came to Woods' attention that Uchitel was writing a book and he then offered payment to her for not writing it, at which point negotiations ensued. Yet another possibility is that when you are foregoing profitable economic activity, such as Uchitel would be doing, then you would not be considered a blackmailer but simply as engaging in a business transaction. Personally, I don't see anything immoral about Uchitel offering Woods a deal like that. In the common blackmail case in detective novels, etc., the blackmailee is often victimized because of his or her unusual sensitivity to public censure, a largely harmless vice, while the blackmailer is acting out of totally selfish motives that may have highly negative consequences for society. For example, the blackmailer may drive the blackmailee to the commission of crimes, the murder of the blackmailer being a staple of fiction.

201.215.63.24 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The US law section

The us law section appears to be a law on extortion, as opposed to blackmail. It only applies if there is a crime that would be revealed if the target of the blackmail does not pay. 74.5.161.93 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "blackmail" appears in the header of the webpage from Cornell University that contains the text of the offence. I think it is likely that they have taken it from the statute. If the word "blackmail" appears in the statute, the offence will have to be mentioned in this article, even if the statute does not conform to the ordinary meaning of that word. James500 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cuts

I have cut the following material because there is no source and I cannot find any authority to support it:

But whatever the nature of the menace, it must be direct. Any vague threat to cause "something bad" to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met, are not applicable under the law.

James500 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I cut this because I thought it was obvious and I am not aware that the point has ever been taken:

Taking hostile action directly does not constitute blackmail, regardless of the legality of the action. For instance, telling a man's wife that he has committed adultery is legal, even if the man would rather pay money than have his wife learn of his adultery. Blackmail consists of making demands in exchange for not taking the action, when the demand does not meet the criteria specified above.

And I cut this because I thought it implied a special relation between the two offences and that if left it would require a mention of every offence that involved aquiring or attempting to aquire property or making threats:

If the elements of blackmail are not made out and the defendant has acquired a vehicle, a charge under s12 Act 1968 may be preferred; see TWOC.

James500 (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have cut this because I can find no authority for it. If the actual violence is a menace, I can't see how that is different from a threat of violence as was formerly suggested. If, for the sake of argument, a thug grabs someone by the neck, holds him two feet off the ground, and demands money, that is a "threat" of (further) violence. It is not the actual violence that induces the victim to hand over money, but the threat that there will be more if he doesn't:

The Act uses the word "menaces", which is considered wider in scope than "threat" and involves a warning of any consequences known to be considered unpleasant by the intended victim. This includes actual violence to the victim or others.

James500 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lawful means

I have cut the following. There is no source. It is not clear which country they apply to. They are not accurate for England: The actual legality of the demands or threats is immaterial. What matters is whether the defendant believes them to be reasonable or proper. Their actual legality is only relevant to assessing the credibility of his claims.

Also repossession is not always, IIRC, lawful. By statute (the Senior Courts Act 1981 I think) there are some classes of goods that a writ of fieri facias cannot be executed on. James500 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Debt collectors have been accused of blackmail, but those pursuing legal debts are generally able to justify their threats of repossession because, even though it may be unpleasant to the victim, this is a legitimate use of civil law remedies. However, there are limits: many jurisdictions do not allow a "claim of right" defence to blackmail. In other words, one cannot use blackmail to collect even a valid debt.

By contrast, those chasing illegal (and thus unenforceable) debts who back up their demands with the threat of bodily injury cannot avail themselves of the same defence. There will also be liability even though the debts are legally owed if the menaces are of a criminal nature, for instance of an assault or more serious violence or criminal damage.

The definition that was formerly contained in the article

I have cut this. There is no source. It seems to be a colloquial (i.e. non-technical) definition of the word. It should be drawn from a dictionary or similar source. You could try the Oxford English Dictionary:

The word is commonly understood to refer to the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or incriminating nature. As the information is substantially true, the act of revealing the information may not be criminal in its own right nor amount to a civil law defamation; it is the making of demands in exchange for withholding the information that is often considered a crime.

James500 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And here is what was written about that definition

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)

"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)

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

Blackmail is not generally a crime, in the United States, at least, if by "blackmail" you mean what is typically thought of: the demand for money or something else in exchange for abstaining from doing something that the blackmailer is legally entitled to do. "Blackmail" is not even a legal term, actually. But what is typically thought of as "blackmail" is different from extortion, which is illegal. The latter involves threatening to do something which the extortioner is NOT legally entitled to do if money is not paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.160.226 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"the demand for money or something else in exchange for abstaining from doing something that the blackmailer is legally entitled to do." That is NOT the definition of blackmail. Blackmail is trying to force someone to do something against one's will by any means. The classic case would be threatening to reveal information unless a service is rendered. This is different from a legally signed contract, for the person in question has already agreed to the contract without any directly threatening incentives. One cannot offer a contract that carries a malicious encouragement to sign. And, Bob A, you are haphazardly addressing a philosophical matter. As it stands, blackmail is a punishable offense in the United States. Like it or not.208.84.198.34 (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Blackmail is trying to force someone to do something against one's will by any means." I am sorry, but that is nonsense. If I pull a gun on you and demand that you give me your wallet, am I "blackmailing" you? Of course not. Webster's defines blackmail as "extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution." Your statement that "blackmail is a punishable offense in the United States...." I'm sorry, but there is no criminal offense in the U.S. known as "blackmail." As I stated previously, "blackmail" is not a legal term, and many of the things which could be described as "blackmail" are not crimes. For example, if I have information about you that you don't want to become public, and I obtain hush money from you in exchange for not giving the info to the press, I have committed no crime. That is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.160.226 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Walter Block argues that blackmail/extortion should be decriminalized. He mentions that it is legal to 1) threaten someone with the disclosure of shameful information; and 2) ask someone for money (like a beggar would). The irony is that if you do both of these things together, then it is illegal. How can two things taken separately as legal be taken together as illegal? I agree with him mostly. However, I can think of drinking and driving as an example of 2 things taken separately as legal; but taken together as illegal. So I'm not wholly convinced by his argument. I like his 2nd argument about blackmailee precedence more. http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/second_paradox.pdf Powerslide (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Prostitution is another example of an act where its constituent parts are legal but taken together is illegal. 64.175.36.46 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Contributer above askes why Blackmail is a Crime if the information is true. It may be 100% true that a young man visits a Massage Parlour and was unknowingly video taped engaging in sex acts with a woman or man there. The fact is the threat to leave copies of the Video tape in Public Phone Booths, or Posted to employers or family and friends of the young man unless thousands of dollars are paid to the Blackmailer can only be described as demanding money with threats.Johnwrd (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blackmail is a crime because it contravenes section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968 in England (quoted in full in the article) or, in my own jurisdiction, section 87 of the Crimes Act 1958. It is as simple as that. The editor who sees nothing criminal about blackmail need only read the relevant sections to discover that blackmail is a crime. --ErnstR (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

?

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)

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Why is the reference in the first paragraph to "England and Wales and Northern Ireland"? Shouldn't it refer to "most common law countries"? --ErnstR (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Theft Act 1968 and IIRC the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 actually contain the word "blackmail". That is why England and Wales and Northern Ireland are mentioned. I did not mention any other countries because I am not aware of any that have an offence called blackmail. There may well be others as I have not checked. If you can find a statutory offence that is called "blackmail" in the statute, or referred to as "blackmail" by another source, feel free to add it.

I am not sure what the common law position was. Someone should actually check. James500 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now added Victoria and the United States to the list. Feel free to add more if you can find them. James500 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian critique

I question whether the libertarian critique of blackmail belongs in the first section. It seems to give undue weight to a point of view that is peculiar only to some libertarians. It does not help a user understand how the word is used, which is what the first section ought to be about.

Thinking of making a "Libertarian critique of blackmail" section somewhere near the bottom. Any objections?

Seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm only making a talk page section about this because this seems to have been preserved through many edits so perhaps there is a consensus.

NeilK (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

James500 resolved this issue by moving the material to a new section titled Criticism. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The definition that has been put at the start of this article appears to be an original synthesis. The Merriam-Webster definition, for example, does not confine blackmail to threats to disclose information or publish allegations.James500 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, saying that blackmail "is the name of a statutory offence" is a definition and it does tell you exactly what it is (when used in a legal context and allowing for jurisdictions that I am not aware of).James500 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not original synthesis. I never supply original synthesis. There's a reason I'm a trusted editor here at Wikipedia. I added five sources to back up both definitions that I put forth. The Merriam-Webster source was not meant to cover the first definition. Just because a reference is first...doesn't mean that it's going to cover the first definition put forth. It wasn't even attributed to that line. But in either case, Merriam-Webster does cover blackmail in regards to threatening to disclose information or publish allegations. In the section above, #The definition that was formerly contained in the article, and IP clearly states that Merriam-Webster says "extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution." And indeed, that is what a few of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries I have at home state. It states "extortion or coercion by often written threats esp. of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecution." For proof, this dictionary.reference.com source shows that the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law states exactly that. The online Merriam-Webster source I have in the lead doesn't show that for some reason, though it initially does (for example, Google the words "extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution" and the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary will initially state that if you click on the link...before going to its current definition), but I will go ahead and add this second source to back that up. As well as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition source.

As for defining blackmail "the name of a statutory offence" is not a definition. Not if you leave it at only that in a sentence. It doesn't tell us what blackmail is. All it does is state that blackmail is an offense in certain countries. Well, so are a lot of other crimes. You used this same line for the beginning if the Laws regarding rape article, which speaks volumes about it not being a definition if it can be as "a definition" for just about any crime. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that Webster-Merriam did not cover threats to publish allegations or disclose information.

Webster-Merriam (to return to my particular example) refers to threats of criminal prosecution. It also refers to other unspecified threats. You have dumped those particular threats from your definition and given a narrower definition than that dictionary.James500 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see now that you are saying that the Merriam-Webster source definition is not limited to threats to disclose information or publish allegations. The thing is...the lead did not state Merriam-Webster says that either. The initial lead says "In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true and/or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met." I started out with a common definition. And then went into a wider definition after that. I did not even use Webster-Merriam to source that part. But I have now, with this source, along with the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language source. So it is not like the definition of blackmail given in the lead is narrow. It's certainly not synthesis. I simply start out with a common definition, and then go into a wider definition. And this is backed up by reliable sources. I could even add the following Merriam-Webster definition as a source: "extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution." Notice it says "especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution." But then again, the newly-added Merriam-Webster source says "especially of public exposure" too. That's a pretty common definition. And it's pretty common on Wikipedia to start out with a common or the most common definition before working into a wider definition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Flyer22, with regard to your recent comment in the page history, what other order do you propose to put them in? How are they typically listed? James500 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

They aren't typically listed in any order, as far as I've seen. Though the See also section is often typically listed in alphabetical order. But, actually, alphabetical order is a good way of keeping bias out of which country to list first...so I am not against your doing it that way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider the synonim chantage

‖ chantage

(ʃ‹fatatilde›taʒ, ˈtʃɑːntɪdʒ, ˈtʃæ-)

[a. F. chantage ‘action de faire chanter quelqu'un, c'est-à-dire de lui extorquer de l'argent en le menaçant de révéler quelque chose de scandaleux, ou de le diffamer, etc.’ (Littré).]

A mode of extorting money by threatening to make scandalous revelations or statements.

   1874 Mahaffy Soc. Life Greece xii. 367 Who extorted money from rich and quiet people by a sort of chantage.    1882 Sat. Rev. 5 Aug. 176/2 Literary chantage.    1883 World 12 Sept. 8 (Social Chantage). Chantage, blackmail or by whatever name the levying of pay, in one shape or another, out of the fear of the payer, is called.    1884 Law Times 29 Nov. 77/2 No one proposes that the laws which protect women from insult and outrage should be relaxed because they may be abused for the purpose of chantage.

The OED

---

Main Entry: chan·tage

Pronunciation: shäntzh

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): -s

Etymology: French, from chanter to yield to extortion, be compliant, literally, to sing + -age

: BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION

Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not feeling well with this at all! The "chantage" is interwiki'ed in so many languages, but doesn't 'blackmail' span a much wider range?? I'd say that the "chantage" is a subset of blackmail; nothing more, nothing less! But I would NEVER set 'blackmail' synonymously to 'chantage'. That would be the wrongest thing to do. -andy 77.190.41.131 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cuts

I have reverted certain additions with this edit. Per my promise in the edit summary, it appears to me that:

• A threat to use physical violence in, for example, a week's time may be blackmail but is not robbery, because that requires a threat of immediate violence.
• A threat to commit the tort of malicious prosecution does not amount to an offence under section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

If we are going to have a discussion of related offences, etc, it should probably go in a separate section. James500 (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I will add a new section, but information can have more than one source don't forget! leopheard (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There can be more than one source, but you still need to tell us what your sources are. James500 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

United States

Shouldn't it be made clear that what is being talked about is only the federal crime of blackmail, and that individual states may or may not have their own statutes on the matter? john k (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed, if individual states do have offences of blackmail, all of them should be included under sub-headings. James500 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Objections" section and the cited United States law seem to contradict each other

It states in "Objections" that "[Some people] point out that it is licit (in the United States at this moment in time) to gossip about someone else's secret, to threaten to publicly reveal such information, and to ask a person for money, but it is illegal to combine the threat with the request for money."

But according to the law quoted above, "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

For instance, if Alice demands money from Bob under "a threat of informing" the public about the affair he had with Carla, is that illegal? If so, the stipulation "against any violation of any law of the United States" appears unnecessary. Is a requirement for blackmail that the act under threat be itself illegal or not?

Shiggity (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Consensual" Blackmail

By definition, blackmail is coercion. As a result, I question whether any supposed sexual fetish involving "consensual blackmail" is actually blackmail. If it's consensual activity, then it's no longer coercion. If it's coercion, then it's no longer consensual. If there is significant evidence that this activity is worthy of an article, then the distinction between blackmail and this activity that's been deemed "consensual blackmail" is large enough that it doesn't belong in this article and could be split into another one.

The quality of the added section raises a separate issue. If it's kept, most of these sources should be removed and new ones would need to be found. Tumblr and Yahoo! Answers are not appropriate sources. BU Rob13 (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As no one has objected to the idea of it being removed (including the original author who was notified), I've removed it for now. I don't believe it currently warrants its own article or even inclusion in a BDSM-related article at this time due to a lack of reliable sources. BU Rob13 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Blackmail in Tasmania

I came looking for the meaning of blackmail and was surprised to find only a few jurisdictions mentioned. I assumed blackmail was virtually a universal crime. So I looked it up in the Tasmanian legislation and have included it. However, the jurisdictions mentioned are qualified by "Statutory". I have included a link to the Tassie legislation. Does that come under "statutory"?

http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=ALL;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BJS1%40GS241%40EN%2B20160127140000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=blackmailGuyburns (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Blackmail

(talk) I have made several recent edits to the Lead, including edits to the first paragraph. I made edits regarding the meaning, or definition, of the term on the assumption that there are two definitions of blackmail. One is the definition in place before my edits, a legal definition, with a reference from a law dictionary. No objections from me on that. But I believe there is a second definition: a "non-legal" definition, the definition in the Cambridge dictionary, a "non-law" dictionary, which I paraphrased. It provides a more general and less technical definition, a "non-legal" definition: one that is applicable to everyday conversation. I believe it should be included. I am open to suggestions as to how to describe it to distinguish it from the legal definition: "non-legal"?; "everyday conversation"? "common usage?"

I am also open to suggestions regarding which definition should come first.

Or is the disagreement over whether there are two definitions; or if there are two, that only the legal definition should be included in this article?

For openers, I suggest the following (only the first sentence is new):

Blackmail is the name of a statutory offense; and is also used in everyday conversation to describe a certain specific behaviour: the act of forcing a person to do something by threatening to harm them or reveal a secret about them. As a legal term it is an act, often criminal, involving unjustified threats to make a gain—most commonly money or property—or loss to another unless a demand is met. It is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of physical harm or criminal prosecution.

Is this an acceptable alternative to the current version? If not, please edit it here on the Talk page, and I will respond: or if you feel no changes to the current version are acceptable, please let me know why. If the above is an acceptable edit, I will add the 1st sentence to the current version. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been over how I feel in the article's edit history: Blackmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'll leave a message about this at WP:LAW.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be vastly easier if the lead focuses on a high level legal definition, and a subsection of the article covers the use of blackmail as a generic term. The differences are not that great and the legal definition itself varies according to jurisdiction. There is no real advantage to listing all possible usage of the word blackmail as a term in the first paragraph because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Frayae, for joining the conversation, and giving your opinion. When I edit WP, the target reader I try to keep in mind is a curious teenager, grades 9-12, who may not read beyond the Lead. For me, a plain English explanation of the word as a generic term using simple language belongs in the Lead, along with a reference from an accepted non-legal dictionary. I am not attempting to cover all possible usages of the word: a non-legal and legal description covers it IMO.

I will refrain from further editing on this article to see if anyone else weighs in. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Not quite what I mean, I see problems with what you wrote. For one, Blackmail is not a statutory offence in every jurisdiction. Two, there is no need to seperate the common and legal definition—it is the same definition written in a different way. And three, your definitions could be too focused and thus missing many aspects, for example mental and emotional blackmail, threats against someone or something close to the victim, the issue of blackmailing for persona position, either political or social. Etc. I will show what I think could be better below, noting that even I may have missed something. It may be a little dense now, feel free to copyedit. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blackmail is the act of forcing a person to do something by threatening to harm them or reveal a secret about them. In law, it is an act of coercion using threats to reveal or publicize either substantially true or false, and often damaging, information about a person, to the public, family members, or associates; or using threats of physical, mental or emotional harm, or of criminal prosecution, against the victim or someone or an object close to the victim, unless certain demands are met. In many jurisdictions blackmail is a statutory offence, often criminal, carrying punitive sanctions for convicted perpetrators. It is normally carried out for personal gain, most commonly of position, money, or property.

(Talk)Perfect, IMO. I agree with your 3 criticisms, and you have fixed them. The key to me is that you have retained the first sentence, which was the main reason for my edit. Please replace the 1st para with what you wrote above. And thanks for your flexibility and cordiality! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Frayae, I don't like starting off with "Blackmail is the act of forcing a person to do something by threatening to harm them." This is because that definition is essentially the definition for coercion. I think the current wording is clearer with regard to what blackmail is. It states, "Blackmail is an act, often criminal, involving unjustified threats to make a gain—most commonly money or property—or cause loss to another unless a demand is met." It also involves a coercion aspect, obviously, but we at least state "most commonly money or property." We go into coercion after that. That stated, I think that "It is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of physical harm or criminal prosecution." is the more common understanding of blackmail, and I therefore would support your second proposed sentence as the lead sentence...without the "In law" piece. We could state, "Blackmail is an act of coercion using threats to reveal or publicize either substantially true or false, and often damaging, information about a person, to the public, family members, or associates, unless certain demands are met. It may involve using threats of physical, mental or emotional harm, or of criminal prosecution, against the victim or someone close to the victim." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2018‎ (UTC)

• I did just put what I wrote in the article without seeing your message first. For the sake of clarity it would be helpful if you drafted what you are thinking of as a finished item. Essentially I think your concern is just over the first sentence and that the rest is more or less correct already. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think this version is the better version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think most the lack of clarity has been addressed and a reasonably accurate high level definition achieved. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

____

References

 Block, Walter E. Blackmail. 2014, pp. 68–70. Nehamakwana (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Shaw, James R. “The Morality of Blackmail.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 40, no. 3, June 2012, pp. 165–96, doi:10.1111/papa.12001. Nehamakwana (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

One interesting view

I would just like to mention Walter Block's interesting perspective on blackmail to be included as part of the objections. The view of it is as a transaction. 114.122.74.59 (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)