Self-study
The following passages are adapted from articles recently published in North American law review journals.
███████ █
P1
██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ██████ █ ████████ ███ ██ ████████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ █ ██ ████ ██████ █ ████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████████ █ ████ █ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ █████
Question ·
Why is blackmail illegal under Canadian and US law?
Blackmail combines two acts that are each legal alone -- threatning to expose info, and seeking money from another. Why is it illegal to combine these actions?
P2
███ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ █████████████ ███████ █ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████
Consequences of lack of answer ·
No clear line between legal and illegal blackmail
Blackmail statutes are broad and cover conduct that most people would think should be legal.
P3
██ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █ █████████████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ █ █████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █ ████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████
Answer to question ·
Illegal because of triangular structure
Blackmailer uses leverage that's dependent on a third party (the government). This misuses a third party for the blackmailer's own benefit.
███████ █
P4
█████████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ █████ ███████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████
Blackmail in Roman law ·
No special category for blackmail
Roman law evaluated actions based on harm, not based on the legality or illegality of the action itself.
P5
█████ █████████████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ █ ██████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████████
Assumption about blackmail ·
Blackmail presumed harmful if it revealed hurt victim's reputation
Party who threatened blackmail had burden to prove good reason for revealing the info.
P6
██ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █ █████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████ █████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███
Relevance of truth ·
Truth of a revealed fact not enough to make blackmail legal
True revelation was legal only if there was a legitimate purpose in revealing the info and the government had an interest in having the info revealed.
Passage Style
16.
Which one of the following ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
In Roman law, █████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████
Strongly supported. Author A says that in Canadian and U.S. common law, free speech protections allow people to
b
Blackmail was more ██████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ████████████ ████████ ██████████
Unsupported comparison. Nothing suggests that blackmail was more widely practiced in ancient Rome than it is now. Neither author indicates how often blackmail is or was practiced.
c
In general, Canadian ███ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████
Unsupported generalization. There’s no indication of how many freedoms each legal system grants, or which system grants more. We know that the Canadian and U.S. system grants the right to free speech and sometimes grants the right to make money, and that the Roman system only sometimes granted the right to free speech. But it’s possible that the Roman system granted many other freedoms that aren’t discussed.
d
The best justification ███ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████
Anti-supported. Under the Canadian and U.S. system, free speech is protected, even when it can cause reputational damage. This protection is part of why it’s difficult to justify the illegality of blackmail.
e
Unlike Roman law, ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████████ █████████
Unsupported. “Do not recognize” is too broad a claim. True, under Canadian and U.S. law, you’re allowed to reveal information regardless of whether public authorities have an interest, because of the right to free speech. In other words, a lack of interest by public authorities can’t stop you from revealing information. But this doesn’t mean Canadian and U.S. law don’t ever recognize the interest of public authorities. What about when those authorities do have an interest in having information revealed? This situation isn’t ever discussed. Perhaps that interest is recognized, and you’re legally obligated to reveal information.