User:Elluel/sandbox

This will be the shared sandbox for the article Blackmail.

Marwa's Ideas
The content of the article doesn't go too much in depth when it comes to what Blackmail actually is. The definition of "blackmail" is met in the summary of the page but there isn't much coverage for the various types of blackmail. I think we should include the different types of blackmail, like extortion, coercion, commercial pressure, etc. I think if we add the various types of blackmail, we would be able to demonstrate how blackmail is played out. I think the problem with the current article is that, although blackmail is defined, the way blackmail is executed isn't covered. I think it would also, be a good idea to add real life examples to the article. Like in-the-news examples of blackmail cases that may have gone viral in order to create a visual idea behind the act of blackmail.
 * Revise the Content
 * Cyber-Blackmail

"Criminals might befriend victims online by using a fake identity and then persuade them to perform sexual acts in front of their webcam, often by using an attractive woman to entice the victim to participate. These women may have been coerced into these actions using financial incentives or threats." As reported by the NCA (National Crime Agency). Both men and women can be victims of this crime. This crime can be done through crime groups or on a individualistic basis.
 * Sextortion (Webcam Blackmail)

Haejin's Ideas
The blurred lines for the two have been mentioned in the US law section as well as the "Commercial blackmail" source. Since extortion can be seen as similar to blackmail, it may prove beneficial to either add a section describing the differences and link to another article on extortion or take out any parts that can bring confusion over the two. A few of the sources seem to be primary sources as mentioned in the Talk section. As a final touch-up to completing our Wiki page, it may be a wise decision to double-check the sources and try to find other sources that can provide more evidence and back-up for what is being stated.
 * Clarify the difference between extortion and blackmail.
 * Confirm the sources used within the article.

"To carry out blackmail, a person must obtain information about the intended victim that the latter does not want revealed."

"Extortionist's threat is not immediate and apparent... The threat of the extortionist can be repeated... for the nature of the extortionist's threat usually lends itself to repetition."

"Blackmailer should often face less difficulty in making his threat credible than a robber or extortionist because the cost of executing a blackmail threat is likely to be small by comparison."

Quotes above are quotes that I feel may be beneficial in adding to the topic of extortion and blackmail. However, since the main idea of the article is blackmail, it may be helpful to place the full focus on blackmail and only touch upon extortion slightly. Additionally, I have added the quotes in full, but the information will be summed up in the final draft and not left in the original quotes.

-

I read over the peer review done by Stav and they mentioned something I had failed to notice, which was the lack of blackmail concentration on countries other than the United Kingdom. So in order to improve upon that, I researched a few more journals through the Rutgers Library Database in order to get a sense of what blackmail is like in other countries.

My first source has a specialized topic on online blackmail of Czech children, but provide an overall image of what is considered blackmail in the Czech, so I felt that I could pull out certain quotes and pieces of information from here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736585316300090?via%3Dihub.

Another source speaks about blackmail within Russian politics. Although this is the same case as above in where it's a very specialized topic, there is still an overview provided which can give insight on what the country's idea of blackmail is like. (https://doaj.org/article/285fc8377d094d45bc2bc640f5f36db8?)

Additionally, the other review mentioned that we, as a team, should start begin piecing our draft together rather than work on it separately, so if someone else happens to see this, please message me on here or at hvk7[@]rutgers[.]edu, so that we could get some piecing together done!

Elluel (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Rob's Ideas
The talk page mentioned the article only recognizes the federal perspective of the crime, neglecting potential differences between states. Such differences could be researched and considered for inclusion under sub-headings in the section. A user in the talk page expressed confusion with a seeming contradiction between the content of the Objections and United States sections. As the Objections section seems to be somewhat lacking in data, further contributions could refine some of these conflicting points.
 * Expand United States section
 * Clarify / Expand Objections section

Rob's Draft:

Important conceptual points to include in Objections section from 'Blackmail, Subjectivity and Culpability' by Ram Rivlin (2015): This source appears credible and reliable by my account. Additional sources would certainly be beneficial. Also to be addressed: maintaining safe distance in language from close paraphrasing / plagiarism once key ideas are identified for inclusion. Rp8 (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Characterizes "subjectivist theories of blackmail" which "hold that while blackmail involves a threat to do something which is objectively permissible, some special character regarding the agent who performs the act (or threatens to do so) renders this act impermissible" (399).
 * Offers solid fundamental discussion of conceptual "paradox of blackmail" (400 - 403) that could be used to overview scholarly perspectives.
 * Further examine this resource to see if its survey of theoretical views on coercion (409 - 415) are worthy of note / actually contribute meaningful information.

Aaron's Ideas
At the bottom of the page and some on the talk page explains to us that some people think blackmail is a crime and some think not. Are both people the criminal and the person that is being blackmailed both in the wrong? It is morally wrong to think so? I think this could create an interesting topic in the sub-section of our wiki page. I will be going more in-depth with this social aspect of blackmail. Ajt174 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Justifications of Morality
 * Clarify/ Explain in detail of Blackmail Morality and how extortion works

Aaron's Opening Draft
Now before when talking about the justifications of morality I talked about the wrongs and certain ideas that the blackmailer and the victim went through and then I proceeded to break it down even more by stating some facts on why the blackmailer would do such things. After reading some articles I found out that I was missing a big part of blackmail and that is Extortion. I found this interesting because people get Blackmail and Extortion confused. Blackmail is more physiological whereas extortion in order to Hg.com/legal resources is that the blackmailer is getting what they want through objects for example property, goods, money, services, etc. -"These threats can be those of violence, physical harm, criminal prosecution, or public exposure of harmful or secret information that would damage a person’s reputation and/or standing in the community" (hg.com) - According to the law of extortion, its mainly done by criminal groups rather than individuals. If the criminals are caught whatever they obtained isn't the offense ( which is doesn't make sense to me because this should be included) Only the verbal communication in what they said will be taken offense. Hence, it all goes back to the sociolinguistics of it all. This includes the RICO act and the Hobbs Act. - "Can be classified as " The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer."
 * Extortion
 * Law of Extortion

Marc's Ideas
When reading through the talk page, one of the most prominent problems is citations. It is crucial to include references to both support statements in the article and most importantly to avoid plagiarizing others' ideas. Many parts of the article have been deleted due to lack of source. I will check as many source links as possible to see that they are working and that the content on the page is not too close to a paraphrase or even possibly plagiarized. In the talk page, it is suggested that synonyms such as "chantage" be used in the article. It could be helpful to add synonyms in order to understand the meaning of "blackmail" better. As pointed out in the talk page, however, it is also very important not to misuse words that could be similar in meaning. For instance, there are parts of the article that the use of the word "blackmail" may not be very correct. We should discuss and consider the idea, and definitely correct the inaccurate uses of "blackmail". Marc XuZhou (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking sources for authorship
 * Adding Synonyms

Marc's Edits
Introduction:

Paragraph one is well cited and no sign of close paraphrasing. All the links are working but three of them are not free resources so I was unable to check them. For the first sentence, link 1 leads to Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law, but its definition is not used in that sentence. Sentence two is well supported by both checkable sources.

Link 6 in paragraph two is not working, leaving the statement about blackmail being a statutory offence unsupported. Sentence two is well supported by source 3 and not close paraphrased. The last two sentences of paragraph three are not cited at all.

Etymology:

The first sentence does not have a reference. The second sentence, although cited is copied directly without change from the source. I would instead try to phrase it as "In the word "blackmail", "mail" does not refer to the modern definition of a letter or package, but is closer to the Middle English word "male", which meant rent or tribute ". The last sentence is not supported or cited. Marc XuZhou (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Similar offences:

The first sentence refers to "the offence created by section 40", but it does not state what it is and would be better if that was included for those who do not know what it is. The sentence about robbery lacks citation or support. Link 32 is working but leads to a page with 404 error, leaving the part about section 4 offence also unsupported. I tried to look for the support on the linked website but could not find content related to blackmail. The next two sentences are also unsupported.

Civil liability:

There are only two citations and the first one does not support the claim. In fact, the reference is unrelated to sentence one. The next citation does support the statement about trials with a jury, however, the cases are not all represented. I would add in the missing cases of "libel, slander" at least.Marc XuZhou (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Edited Passages
Etymology: The word blackmail is variously derived from the word for tribute (in modern terms, protection racket) paid by English and Scottish border dwellers to Border Reivers in return for immunity from raids and other harassment. In the word "blackmail", "mail" does not refer to the modern definition of a letter or package, but is closer to the Middle English word "male", which meant rent or tribute This tribute was paid in goods or labour (reditus nigri, or "blackmail"); the opposite is blanche firmes or reditus albi, or "white rent" (denoting payment by silver). Alternatively, Mckay derives it from two Scottish Gaelic words blathaich pronounced (the th silent) bla-ich (to protect) and mal (tribute, payment). He notes that the practice was common in the Highlands of Scotland as well as the Borders. In Irish Gaelic, the term cíos dubh, meaning "black-rent" has also been employed.

Civil Liability: A blackmailer who threatens to publish a defamatory statement of and concerning an individual may be liable to be sued after the regulations of the Defamation Act 2013. Offenders of defamation may be taken to court if serious harm is done to the victim. The requirement for serious harm defines: (1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

The trial for the offence must be with a jury in the case of charges with cases of : (a) fraud (b) malicious prosecution (c) false imprisonment (d) libel (e) slander Marc XuZhou (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)