Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized

Definitions: Blackmail is defined as a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.[1][2] Usually blackmail involves asking another individual for money in exchange for not revealing the information. Note that this definition excludes extortion which, as Professor Walter Block of the University of Central Arkansas notes, Extortion is the demand for money or other valuable consideration, coupled with the threat to do something which both is and should be illegal. For example, 'Give me X of your money or I will kidnap your children' . . . In very sharp contrast, blackmail is the demand for money or other valuable consideration coupled with the threat do something which both is and should be legal." [1] My opponent therefore cannot reject blackmail on the grounds that it is extortion because there is a distinct difference between the two offences. Contention 1: The actions behind blackmail are completely legal, so it is foolish for blackmail to be legal.Blackmail possesses two fundamental components, namely asking an individual for money and threatening to expose/exposing private information. Neither of these activities are independently illegal.Asking an individual for money is obviously legal in almost any context. If I walk to the bank and ask them for a loan, I am asking them for money. If I ask my employer for compensation for performing my job, I am asking them for money. In fact, not only is asking an individual for money not illegal, but offering individuals money in order to maintain silence about specific issues is perfectly legal as well in the form of nondisclosure agreements, which are defined as "a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by third parties. It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org......). Second, revealing embarassing information to the public is absolutely legal as well. If I possess information about an individual, my First Amendment rights allow me to reveal the information to the public at any time I please. For example, the media hounds presidential candidates in order to discover evidence of scandals because it is legally permitted to reveal this embarassing and potentially damaging information to the public due to freedom of speech. Moreover, whistleblowers are permitted to reveal the illegal activities of corporations and governmental agencies to the public despite the fact that such information might be damaging.Since these two components of blackmail are absolutely legal, it is nonsensical that the sum of these components, or blackmail, is illegal. Professor Walter Block of the University of Central Arkansas explains, "The claim that blackmail should be prohibited by law, given that its two constituent elements are both and should be legal, is like being told that fishing is legal, bicycle riding is notagainst the law, but that dropping a baited hook into the water in an attempt to catch a fish while sitting on a bicycle will land you a term in the hoosegow. A request for money, and a promise to keep a secret, have as little intrinsically to do with one another as a fish and a bicycle" (Source: http://www.walterblock.com......). Thus, blackmail should be legal because, logically, both of its component actions are legal.Contention 2: Legalizing blackmail would allow for greater protection of both parties in the blackmail process. Because blackmail is illegal, neither side can propose that a written, formal contract be created in order to protect both parties involved. Legalizing blackmail, however, would promote the creation of contracts that protected both parties because such contracts would have the force of law and would be mutually beneficial. The blackmailer would be protected because it would guarantee that he would receive the promised money after handing over the incriminating evidence to the individual in question, and the blackmailee would be protected because it would allow him or her to dictate terms that would prevent the individual in question from legally requesting more money and/or blackmailing him again and revealing the information after obtaining the money anyways.Either of these contentions independently justifies the resolution.Sources1. http://www.walterblock.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...