IFP One of the Most Common Issues,

IFP

One of the most common issues, psychologists will face is applying how different ideas are relevant in real world situations. In the case of defamation and slander, these consequences can have a negative impact on the reputation of the individual. This can harm their social standing and public perception.

The Internet is making these issues more complicated. This is because people can go online and make any kind of statement without considering the facts. These areas are troubling, as it is creating harm to the image of the person and their character. The case Hutchinson v. Proxmire is showing how these definitions can be very broad depending upon what is said and the intention of the other party. ("Hutchinson v. Proxmire," 2013) (Sanders, 2012)

In this particular situation, Dr. Hutchinson claimed that his reputation was damaged based upon comments made about him by William Proxmire. He was a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, who made derogatory comments about him and the fact that Dr. Hutchinson was receiving public funds. Hutchinson believed; that he was subject to damages for liable and slander to his reputation. This is because he felt that he was a public figure. The U.S. Supreme Court found that he was not a public figure. The Justices findings were based upon the fact that he was receiving grants and other funds from the federal government. Under this standard, he is someone who is receiving financial assistance. ("Hutchinson v. Proxmire," 2013)

However, they determined that he is Proxmire did not have the right to saying anything he wants about Hutchinson. This is because his comments damaged the reputation of Hutchinson and his professional image. The results were that Proxmire was forced to publically apologize for these statements and pay him $25 thousand in damages. This situation, is illustrating the harm that can occur when someone engages in these activities with no recourse of the long-term effects from their actions. ("Hutchinson v. Proxmire," 2013)

In a study that was conducted by Sanders (2012), she found that these kinds of accusations can lead to long-term injuries to the person's character and their reputation. When this occurs, it will create perceptions that these assertions are true. Yet, they may be based on someone expressing an emotional thought which is not substantiated. (Sanders, 2012)

A good example of this occurred with a case in the state of Minnesota. In this particular situation, Dennis Laurion wrote a comment on the Rate Your Doctor web site. On it, he described his physician as a tool. This resulted in his neurologist suing him. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that he was in violation of liable, slander and defamation laws. (Sanders, 2012)