What is more ironic than being asked for a retraction by a website founded on the spreading of malicious, unsubstantiated gossip in the name of free speech?

Nothing.

In this issue’s commentary section, I discussed the recent theory that, in an effort to bolster the website’s fading popularity at Georgetown, JuicyCampus administrators have posted on the website disguised as Georgetown students.

Though this was mere speculation and all in good fun, JuicyCampus was apparently not too pleased. The Independent soon received an email from BWR, the public relations firm that handles JuicyCampus, asking us to issue a retraction.

Saying that I imply in the story that JuicyCampus posts on their school’s board (”which is in fact not correct,” the email read), they asked us to retract the article.

The email then provided a statement from JuicyCampus: “JuicyCampus employees have never posted to the site’s message board.  All content is user-generated.”

Fair enough. We were happy to print the statement, which was added to the online version and will be added to next month’s print edition. But a retraction? We object.

In the original commentary, I never explicitly stated that I believed the theory; I instead published speculation quoted directly from the JuicyCampus website. All Matt Ivester quotes were taken from public speeches, which are also for public use. Finally, the article was printed in the commentary section of the newspaper, not the news section - so while journalistic principle and proper media ethics are certainly followed, a certain amount of editorializing is allowed.

Here at The Independent, and at most other publications, requests of this kind are not rare. As seen from certain Letters to the Editor, many people take issue with some of what we print. That’s fine; we actually welcome the comments, whether they are positive, negative or downright ridiculous. (The latter category is our favorite, actually. Though there have been many contenders, including one comment warning us that Scarlett Johansson is actually acyborg clone, one of our fondest and most referenced Indy memories is the first comment onthis page.) The beauty of freedom of speech is that it extends to everyone, not just publications.

Yet as a publication, our primary concern is with the ethical dissemination of worthwhile and interesting news and commentary. While we take care not to offend, make errors, or commit slander or libel, it is not our job to avoid stepping on any toes.

The ironic gem to be gleaned from this scenario is the fact that JuicyCampus - the very same website that champions (and, in my opinion, hides behind) freedom of speech and freedom of information - is asking us to retract gossip that may damage their reputation.

In a November 19 post on theofficial JuicyCampus blog, Matt Ivester discussed Tennessee State University’s ban of JuicyCampus, writing, “this decision meant that TSU had just become the first public university to ban JuicyCampus.com from its servers, joining the ranks of the Chinese government in internet censorship, and spitting in the faces of everyone who believes in free discourse online.

“The most significant threats to free speech (in the U.S. at least) tend to come not from tyrants who openly question the value of the First Amendment,” he continued, “but from well-meaning busybodies who want to protect peoples’ feelings-a mission that is generally incompatible with free speech.”

I’m sorry JuicyCampus… did we hurt your feelings?