It`s just that the child Jackson paid for had a lawyer who made his speeches, the woman who claimed to be Cosby`s daughter, her own conversations. I read in the papers that Letterman brought his lawyer to trial with his alleged blackmailer. Okay, if you`re a blackmailer and your victim brings a lawyer into the Parley and you haven`t – that`s a problem. The distinction seems pretty obvious. Because the rape of a child was illegal, the child who was raped by Michael Jackson had the right to sue Michael Jackson for a lot of money. The compensation was partly a payment for silence, but in large part it was to settle the child`s claim. Suppose someone found out that Michael Jackson was raping the child and threatening to blab if he didn`t get $22 million. It is hard to imagine Jackson paying in this situation. Thus, in the housing situation, the person receiving the money is the same person who has been harmed by the odious behaviour of the « blackmail master singer », whereas in the situation of direct blackmail, the person receiving the money is only a fortuitous bystander in a position to have confidential information that has not been harmed.
I have no problem with the fact that the former get rich, but not the latter. As someone pointed out in the previous thread, there would be a problem with threats to disclose false information if blackmail was legal. It is easier to make all these threats illegal without falling into truth or lies. One of the many « alarm bells » on this issue concerns the risk that such a threat could constitute an offence of extortion. In addition to regulatory concerns for a lawyer involved in this behavior, the maximum sentence for anyone convicted of extortion is 14 years in prison. Confidentiality Agreements (NDA) have also made headlines because they have been used by Harvey Weinstein and others to buy the silence of women who allegedly harassed or assaulted them. And in recent months, it has also become public that this legal instrument has been used to isolate members of Congress from control after accusations of harassment. Harvey Weinstein and the #MeToo movement have focused public attention on both sexual theft and confidentiality agreements that help him survive. NDAs help repeat offenders avoid detection and punishment, increasing the risk of harm to future victims. At the same time, NDAs are thought to have advantages.
They protect the privacy interests of information, both for offenders and victims, facilitate dispute resolution and provide higher comparative premiums. This article offers moral arguments against the purported virtues of the NDAs. The culprits have no right to be informed of their wrongs.