4 ms·

>You inform the company (through your lawyer) that their options are a settlement with you in exchange for keeping quiet, or public airing of dirty laundry Tha

>You inform the company (through your lawyer) that their options are a settlement with you in exchange for keeping quiet, or public airing of dirty laundry That sounds like blackmail/extortion. I'm not a lawyer, but the first amendment should protect you pretty well from merely making truthful accusations, but once you threaten money in exchange for not making them it could be construed as a very serious crime.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
Also not a lawyer, but isn't it relatively common for someone to get a payday on condition of not making something public?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Absolutely. But you're not getting that payday through a threat (extortion) you're getting it through a mutual agreement.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    That doesn't strike me as a very clear distinction. If you negotiate for more money in return for remaining silent, is that blackmail?
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      No, it's a negotiation at that point. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that the difference lies in whether or not you make a demand. If you simply say "I'm going public with this info on X date" and leave it at that, it's not extortion. If the other party decides they want to pay you to not do that, it's on them and you can negotiate from there because they made the offer. If you say "I'm going public with this info on X date unless you pay me" it's extortion.
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        I'm not sure it works like that. You may get away with it, assuming the lawyer never reveals your intent, but this sounds a lot like the "security" extortion rackets of the mob: "Hey thought you should know, my 'security' company is currently for hire for businesses around town. We heard through the underground grapevine that a lot of folks may lose some product in their bodegas next month. Anyway, nice to introduce you to my 'security' business -- have a great month!" If you revealed that your true intent was blackmail, and that's what this is, to your lawyer or anyone else then I imagine the intent in combination with the act is enough to nail you.
jaywalk 5y ago
Yeah, no lawyer worth their license would ever do this.
- ohazi 5y ago
  It sounds like you have an overly idealistic view of how this process works. Why do you imagine non-disclosure agreements are standard after an out-of-court settlement? It's because "pay me or I'll badmouth you" is essentially always one of the implied threats. You can call it blackmail if you want (and I'm being deliberately glib here, because I also think it's at least blackmail-esque), but your lawyer and the company's lawyer will absolutely understand that this is how things are done.
sangnoir 5y ago
IANAL - but the legal term would be "non-disparagement" as one of the carrots the lawyer dangles. It's all very legal, very cool, and both side perfectly understand what it means. Avoiding bad PR is one of the reasons most settlements have non-disparagement clauses, usually paired with a confidentiality clause that says you can't even talk about the settlement (and therefore you can't mention or imply the existence of the non-disparagement clause therein).
afiori 5y ago
IANAL, but often it is not extorsion when you are the victim: Give me money or I will tell the public that you did me wrong -> not extorsion Give me money or I will tell the public that you did someone else wrong -> extorsion I believe that the litmus test is whether you are entitled to a compensation or not. Either can be defamation though.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  That explanation does make sense. But Shitlassian guy did talk about things that were done wrong to other people, so I'm not sure he'd be able to pass this test.
  - afiori 5y ago
    I would think of those as supporting evidence. In my previous classification it would be extorsion to say "pay me or I will add those things to my accusations" but not to say "pay me or I will drag you in the mud as much as possible", that is it would matter whether you keep them bundled together or not.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

Also not a lawyer, but isn't it relatively common for someone to get a payday on condition of not making something public?

jaywalk 5y ago
Absolutely. But you're not getting that payday through a threat (extortion) you're getting it through a mutual agreement.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  That doesn't strike me as a very clear distinction. If you negotiate for more money in return for remaining silent, is that blackmail?
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    No, it's a negotiation at that point. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that the difference lies in whether or not you make a demand. If you simply say "I'm going public with this info on X date" and leave it at that, it's not extortion. If the other party decides they want to pay you to not do that, it's on them and you can negotiate from there because they made the offer. If you say "I'm going public with this info on X date unless you pay me" it's extortion.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      I'm not sure it works like that. You may get away with it, assuming the lawyer never reveals your intent, but this sounds a lot like the "security" extortion rackets of the mob: "Hey thought you should know, my 'security' company is currently for hire for businesses around town. We heard through the underground grapevine that a lot of folks may lose some product in their bodegas next month. Anyway, nice to introduce you to my 'security' business -- have a great month!" If you revealed that your true intent was blackmail, and that's what this is, to your lawyer or anyone else then I imagine the intent in combination with the act is enough to nail you.

jaywalk 5y ago

Yeah, no lawyer worth their license would ever do this.

ohazi 5y ago
It sounds like you have an overly idealistic view of how this process works. Why do you imagine non-disclosure agreements are standard after an out-of-court settlement? It's because "pay me or I'll badmouth you" is essentially always one of the implied threats. You can call it blackmail if you want (and I'm being deliberately glib here, because I also think it's at least blackmail-esque), but your lawyer and the company's lawyer will absolutely understand that this is how things are done.

sangnoir 5y ago

IANAL - but the legal term would be "non-disparagement" as one of the carrots the lawyer dangles. It's all very legal, very cool, and both side perfectly understand what it means. Avoiding bad PR is one of the reasons most settlements have non-disparagement clauses, usually paired with a confidentiality clause that says you can't even talk about the settlement (and therefore you can't mention or imply the existence of the non-disparagement clause therein).

afiori 5y ago

IANAL, but often it is not extorsion when you are the victim: Give me money or I will tell the public that you did me wrong -> not extorsion Give me money or I will tell the public that you did someone else wrong -> extorsion I believe that the litmus test is whether you are entitled to a compensation or not. Either can be defamation though.

quantumBerry 5y ago
That explanation does make sense. But Shitlassian guy did talk about things that were done wrong to other people, so I'm not sure he'd be able to pass this test.
- afiori 5y ago
  I would think of those as supporting evidence. In my previous classification it would be extorsion to say "pay me or I will add those things to my accusations" but not to say "pay me or I will drag you in the mud as much as possible", that is it would matter whether you keep them bundled together or not.