4 ms·
The court will make the final decision, but wow it really does seem like extortion. The stories in the article are brutal. The free press argument isn't releva
by joshe 8y ago
The court will make the final decision, but wow it really does seem like extortion. The stories in the article are brutal.
The free press argument isn't relevant. If the a local paper called you up and said "hey we are going to publish this negative article about a bar fight you started unless you pay us $500", that would also be extortion. Remove "unless you pay us" and it's totally legal.
If MugPhotos.com launches and just publishes mugshots but doesn't charge to remove them, it would also not be extortion.
FindLaw: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action."
IANAL etc.
- jMyles 8y agoThe difference is: Merely publishing a mugshot is not "harm to reputation". If it were, then it'd be extrajudicial punishment when the government does it, no?
- SamReidHughes 8y agoThere's nothing legally wrong with extrajudicial harm to reputation.
- jMyles 8y agoYeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.
- joshe 8y agoIf they are sharing true facts, they can harm your reputation anytime they want. Individuals can harm other people's reputation with true facts too. Defamation/slander/libel is only when someone harms your reputation with false facts. It's hard to win defamation suits. Doesn't make it nice of course. But not every cruel thing is illegal.
- jMyles 8y ago...but then isn't that true for everybody? If this is indeed extortion on the basis that it is demanding money under threat of harm to reputation, then isn't it equally true when the state does it? That was the original point above.
- URSpider94 8y agoInterestingly enough, blackmail statues usually apply even when the information at issue is TRUE. Read the article I linked to elsewhere -- it opens with an interesting comment that blackmail is a paradox -- it's criminalizing a consensual transaction between two people, regarding otherwise Constitutionally protected behavior.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoYes. That is true. It would be kind of crazy if it weren't.
- jMyles 8y agoCrazy in what way? Can you show me a precedent that shows that state agents are immune from the typical ramifications of defamation?
- SamReidHughes 8y agoMaking true statements is not defamation. If they do want to lie, the general legal concept that protects the government is sovereign immunity. You can only sue the government for libel if they let you. It's crazy because the government has to be able to make true statements that hurt others' reputation in order to do a lot of stuff that it does, or simply to publish information openly. For example, imagine a document justifying choosing one paving company over another.
- jMyles 8y agoWell, presumably if it was a section 1983 matter you'd sue the individual state agent, so I don't really see what sovereign immunity has to do with anything here. And yeah, so again, back to the original comment: presumably you or I are just as free to do things like you've listed. If I choose one paving company over another, I can publish my reasons for doing so. I can even offer to remove that post is the latter pays me to do so (this is essentially Yelp's business model, right? gross.) So how will the system treat this as different?
- joshe 8y agoIt's the "gaining money by threat" part that makes it a plausibly successful charge. What they do is publishing it in a way likely to lead to more publicity, more harm to reputation unless you pay them. Take the Letterman extortion case. Letterman had a relationship with a staffer. Another staffer threatened to disclose to the press unless Letterman paid him. That staffer was convicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Halderman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Halderman Disclosing to press/public and harming reputation is not extortion. And harming reputation with true facts is totally legal. You can even go to a (trashy) paper and get paid for your story. Threatening to disclose and/or publicize unless payment is made is extortion. IANAL and building a case is probably more complicated than I understand.
- jMyles 8y agoYeah, I think you've basically hit the nail(s) on the head here. But it also seems at least partly designed to obscure the fact that parts of pre-trial confinement are tantamount to extrajudicial punishment.