Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot. So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come…
You asked for an example I gave you one. You tried to claim (in spite of the source I provided showing the contrary) that the actions weren’t blackmail and weren’t illegal. Now you’re trying to reframe to get me to provide another example for some reason. Pretty clear you’re not even attempting a good faith argument at this point.
You're arguing blackmail should be illegal because of the status quo, which isn't all that interesting of an argument, so if that's good faith, in your opinion, then I don't mind ending it here.