Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 2974535, member: 966"]
I was being slightly facetious, but it almost seems like the difference is in [B]who instigates[/B] the transaction. ? 
If you're the Party who can be damaged by the information (Party 2), you're allowed to go to Party 1 to offer to purchase that information toward squelching it. But, if you're Party 1, you can't go to Party 2 to offer to conceal the information for the same transactional value. Almost makes sense, except...

If you're a 'whistleblower,' the information you have could be of value to the public. The Nike Payment Allegations, for example. So, 'threatening' to release it shouldn't be the part that is criminal. Concealing it is almost a form of complicity. If you know of a crime and don't report it... Didn't some school shooter's friends get charged for not reporting the guy, or for covering up something after the fact? Yeesh. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, peppered with ambiguity, and sauced with enigma.

I'm not sure how this is so wrong for Avenatti. He uncovered information, and tried to sell it to the company that would be damaged. That's a service. He would, ostensibly, have put his client into an NDA, and that would have protected Nike. It almost seems like the objection is to the savagery of the language used in the 'offer.'
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?