Is it extortion to threaten to destroy one's own property?

[josephus]

Just as a hypothetical, whether under UK or International law, could it be considered extortion/ransom to threaten to destroy an item of public importance (possibly of artistic or cultural merit) that you legally own unless your demands are met?

I can't seem to find any coverage of this sort of thing (though I don't have a full case library at my disposal).

[chason58]

no it is,nt.but it would be foolish.

[corcoran42]

no it is,nt.but it would be foolish.

in therory yes
though i doubt any one would bother
you could destroy it and not make a demand and that would be fine\

[yago]

if you owned a landmark building and wanted to change it, wouldn't that get you into trouble?

[tahmelapachme33]

Extortion or outwresting is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical or reputational harm unless they are paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. The four simple words "pay up or else" are sufficient to constitute the crime of extortion. An extortionate threat made to another in jest is still extortion.
In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce". Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.
Extortion is distinguished from blackmail. In blackmail, the blackmailer threatens to do something which would be legal or normally allowed.
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In "strong arm" robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force. In "robbery" goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of another—with or without force. A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller. In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur. Under federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat (refer to U.S.C. 875 and U.S.C. 876).
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and even taxation, have all been labeled "extortion" by people with various social or political beliefs.
Extortion currently carries up to a maximum prison sentence of 20 years in most states and under Federal law.

[gustav]

What the hell?

Where did this question come from?

[clem84]

Well firstly international and national laws are different matters. On a national level i would assume that certain items of cultural value would be protected by the government i.e. certain buildings are listed even if you own them which means you have to apply for planning permission before you can make significant alterations and you certainly cannot demolish them.

[gideon]

No. See the elements of the offense of extortion.

[bardoul]

Yes.The case of the Churchill papers comes to mind when the then Tory MP Randolf Churchill(a hugely wealthy man in his own right) threatened to sell the war papers of Winston Churchill unless the then newly formed lottery stumped up several million pounds which they duly did.

[ruelle]

well if its in your private property like a christmas light show, then do what u like

but if its a more spectacular thing that people have interacted with at a higher level, then it may be argued that you have implicitly granted a continuing licence for them to use it, and that by implication you have agreed to not stop its use in the future.

In property law, there was an english case where a lady let two priests walk on a part of her land to go to church, about 20 years later the church claimed it as their land... strange case of adverse possession
looked in my book for the case
but cant find the case, so ignore my point above