Talk:Blackmail

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Word Origin

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Commercial blackmail" - Extortion, not blackmail? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blackmail Tiger Woods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The US law section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cuts 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lawful means

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The definition that was formerly contained in the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: And here is what was written about that definition

message: 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)
thread_title:  "substantially true"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Crime? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  England, Wales and Northern Ireland 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alphabetical order 

message: ‖ 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consider the synonim '''chantage''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cuts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  United States 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "Objections" section and the cited United States law seem to contradict each other 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Consensual" Blackmail 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blackmail in Tasmania 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One interesting view