Talk show host David Letterman told his audience last night that he was the “victim” of a $2 million extortion attempt. Bill Carter of the New York Times reports:
Mr. Letterman said on “The Late Show,” on CBS, that he had been approached by a person who wanted $2 million not to go public with information that Mr. Letterman had been in sexual relationships with women who work on his show.
Mr. Letterman said that he had testified before a grand jury and had admitted to the relationships.
“My response to that is, yes I have. Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would,” he said on the show. “I feel like I need to protect these people. I need to certainly protect my family.”
. . .
Mr. Letterman said that three weeks ago, he received a package from a person who claimed to have information about the relationships.
Mr. Letterman said he reached out to the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
In the course of the investigation, Mr. Letterman was asked to write what he called a fake check for $2 million. The suspect in the case was arrested Thursday.
Neither Mr. Letterman nor the district attorney’s office revealed the person’s name. In a statement late Thursday night, CBS said the suspect was an employee of the CBS news program “48 Hours” and was arrested on charges of attempted grand larceny. The network said that the employee had been suspended.
So what exactly is the crime? A man with truthful information about Mr. Letterman’s past said he would publish that information unless Mr. Letterman paid him to keep quiet. This happens every day under the sanction of the judicial system, but when it’s done without lawyers or judges, suddenly it’s “extortion.”
Mr. Letterman is not a victim here. This situation was the result of his own actions. However, since he’s a Caucasian celebrity, the New York County district attorney felt obliged to bring criminal charges to help shield Mr. Letterman from criticism. When an African-American celebrity makes a mistake in New York, of course, the same DA will throw you in prison for two years.UPDATE: New York County DA Robert Morgenthau issued this laughable statement:
“The message of this indictment should be clear. New York City will not tolerate the coercion or extortion of anyone, be the victim rich or poor, famous or anonymous. The law prohibits conduct like defendant’s and attaches severe penalties to it. We intend to enforce the law.”
Really? Morgenthau won’t “tolerate the coercion or extortion of anyone”? I assume this means he’ll be indicting every single member of the New York State government — including himself — that depends on coercion or extortion to support their own positions.
{ 154 comments }
← Previous Comments
Jay,
Haha, yeah, I don’t know what my deal is.
“trying to argue that the subjectivity of morality is a justification for the legislation of morality”
Very well put. I think that is all one needs to know about this particular brouhaha. Thanks.
For anyone who still cares, I should point out that Brian Macker’s “refutation” of the fundamental point was so bad that I chose to ignore it.
But I think I’ll respond just so I don’t get accused of being blind or immature or morally degenerate or something.
**********
I’ve already shown that the simple argument “Blackmail, asking to be paid to keep quite, should be legal if it is perfectly legal for the person to disclose the information in the first place” is false. I falsified it with the example of blackmailing someone for a crime they committed. It’s perfectly legal to disclose a crime. In that case it is perfectly legal for any third party to disclose the information that would hurt the person it would damage. Yet it becomes a crime to ask to be paid to keep silent about the crime because that would entail obstruction of justice. One could argue that the person with the knowledge of a crime has an legal duty to come forward with the information and that is the crime in and of itself, but it is NOT the crime of consipiracy. Thus the blackmail in this case is an independent crime regardless of you position on that subject
**********
Despite the irritation it causes me, I do appreciate the ingenius ability Brian Macker seems to have for injecting wishy-washiness into a debate. I might hire him to be my defense lawyer when the State hauls me in for cutting my toenails too short or whatever.
Now let’s see … Apparently the following statement proves itself:
“it becomes a crime to ask to be paid to keep silent about the crime because that would entail obstruction of justice.”
All I can say to this statement is … False!
I’m pretty sure that I too can also disprove anything, provided that I am allowed to invent whatever false assumptions I deem necessary to complete the job.
Jay Lakner,
It’s perfectly moral to witness and report a crime. It is criminal for a witness to take money to be quite about a crime.
That’s a perfect example of something that is legal to do but criminal to be paid not to do. So it refutes the blanket claim that everything that is legal to do is in fact legal to be paid not to do. Therefore you can’t use that claim to refute anything, it’s false.
You haven’t refuted my proof of the falsity of that claim. You merely asserted that it is false. Which is no argument.
Yes, you are a moral degenerate if you think being a witness to a crime should be enshrined in law as an opportunity to cash in on some of spoils the criminal stole from the victim. Simple as that, and I don’t see how that is wishy-washy.
(I’m back here again because Kinsella is posting yet another one of his mistaken articles on blackmail, and I noticed the new comments)
@Brian Macker:
I believe in your first paragraph you commit a logic error. The following claims are all correct:
- If it is legal to not report a witnessed crime, it is also legal to do it for money.
- If it is legal to report a witnessed crime, it is also legal to do it for money.
- If it is illegal not to report a witnessed crime, it is also illegal to do it for money
I think the situation might be more clear once I point out that there are three categories, not two: (1) being forbidden to do x, (2) being required to do x and (3) being permitted to do x. 1 is the opposite of 3, not of 2.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.