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
15.
In using the phrase
a
legal authority to █████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████
A blackmailer’s bargaining chip is her threat to turn the victim in to the state. She’s not risking her own resources to get what she wants—she’s risking the the possibility that the state will or won’t find out about the crime. So “the state’s chip” refers to what the state stands to lose: information about the crime. It doesn’t refer to the state’s authority to say what is or isn’t a crime altogether, because regardless of what the blackmailer does, there’s no apparent risk to that authority. The state still decides what counts as a crime—it just doesn’t get informed about this particular crime.
b
legitimate interest in ████████ █████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████
A blackmailer’s bargaining chip is her threat to turn the victim in to the state. She’s not risking her own resources to get what she wants—she’s risking the the possibility that the state will or won’t find out about the crime. So we can say that “the state’s chip” refers to the state’s desire to know when a crime has occurred.
c
legitimate interest in ██████████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████
In the given scenario, the blackmailer is threatening to turn in the victim for a crime that has already occurred. The blackmailer isn’t bargaining with the state’s desire to prevent crimes; she’s bargaining with the state’s desire to know once a crime has occurred. This is what (B) describes.
d
exclusive reliance on ███████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████
“The state’s chip” refers to what the blackmailer is threatening the victim with. The blackmailer’s threat isn’t “pay up, or the state will rely on private citizens for info.” Her threat is “pay up, or the state will find about about the crime you committed.” So “the state’s chip” refers to the state’s knowledge of the victim’s crime. This is what (B) gets at.
e
legal ability to ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████
“The state’s chip” refers to what the blackmailer is threatening the victim with. The blackmailer’s threat isn’t “pay up, or the state will make you testify about other crimes you’ve witnessed.” The blackmailer is threatening to let the state know about the crime the victim committed. So “the state’s chip” refers to the state’s knowledge of the victim’s crime. This is what (B) gets at.