By that logic, exposing a scam is also murder, since the scammer could go bankrupt, face jail, etc.
Not all things that cause financial hardship are attempted murder. Firing someone is even more likely to cause hardship, but a valid business decision. Financial hardship isn't the purpose, though, when you fire someone or expose a scam. It's a side effect. What you are really trying to do, in the scam case, is protect the public and, in the firing case, end an unprofitable business relationship. Once those goals are achieved, you generally don't go after that person to cause further financial difficulty.
Reporting a drunk driver is murder, since they may get arrested, lose their job, and be shunned.
Again, no. If anything, you're saving the world from more severe hardships (of the financial kind; but, more severely, injuries and deaths) by reporting him. Besides, when you report him, your goal isn't to ruin his life. It's to protect innocents from the danger he's causing. (If his life gets ruined, he's not exactly innocent, but that's probably not your goal in reporting him.)
See, blacklisting is done specifically to cause persistent and unreasonable financial hardship. Financial difficulties to another party are, in those other cases, side effects. With blacklisting, there is intent to ruin the person's life, and that intent is persistent, which generally means that there is no escape for that person. Different story altogether.
Not all things that cause financial hardship are attempted murder. Firing someone is even more likely to cause hardship, but a valid business decision. Financial hardship isn't the purpose, though, when you fire someone or expose a scam. It's a side effect. What you are really trying to do, in the scam case, is protect the public and, in the firing case, end an unprofitable business relationship. Once those goals are achieved, you generally don't go after that person to cause further financial difficulty.
Reporting a drunk driver is murder, since they may get arrested, lose their job, and be shunned.
Again, no. If anything, you're saving the world from more severe hardships (of the financial kind; but, more severely, injuries and deaths) by reporting him. Besides, when you report him, your goal isn't to ruin his life. It's to protect innocents from the danger he's causing. (If his life gets ruined, he's not exactly innocent, but that's probably not your goal in reporting him.)
See, blacklisting is done specifically to cause persistent and unreasonable financial hardship. Financial difficulties to another party are, in those other cases, side effects. With blacklisting, there is intent to ruin the person's life, and that intent is persistent, which generally means that there is no escape for that person. Different story altogether.