I go to Harper's Ferry from time to time and am trying to understand the geography of this. I take it that the subdivision is away from the main part of the park because geography would make that impossible. Along the Shenandoah there quickly rise extremely steep cliffs where a sub-development would be impossible. If I am reading this correctly, the utility lines to this sub-development, however, were in the narrow swatch of land occupied by the Park (nothing else can really take up that land except the park) to the sub-development adjacent to the Park. That's wild. Harper's Ferry regardless of its history is a stunningly beautiful area. While I am a student of history, it's not just a historical park. It is at the point where the Shenandoah and the Potomac meet surrounded by steep and beautiful hillsides. The geography is all important in understanding why John Brown failed and why the Union had no chance of holding Harper's Ferry if any of the high ground was controlled by the confederacy; it could be bombarded to oblivion. The geography, however, is also stunning enough that if no such town as Harper's Ferry existed, someone might have made it a national park anyhow. A more interesting story to me about Harpers Ferry National Park is something that I participated in protesting against. The National Park Service gave a permit to the Ku Klux Klan to have a rally at Harper's Ferry (they did the same at Gettysburg and Antietem), and they cited free speech as being the reason. I think its ludicrous to say that its free speech for racists to congregate who would deny free speech to people of color. What's more, NPS provided escorts and security for the rally. You could see Klansmen sitting in SUVs driven by rangers. I witnessed this with my own eyes. What's sadder is that people who came out against racism were outnumbered by onlookers who came to support the KKK. It was a scary and ugly scene, scarier I might add then utility lines. I felt ashamed to have witnessed such a display on the narrow strip of land along the Shenandoah. I guess Harper's Ferry has always been the scene of victories of racists over anti-racists, and that beautiful October day, with the leaves changing color, was no exception. Of course, that says nothing of the young people who were immediately arrested without warning and threatened with tasers by the local police in the town above because a couple had put on black masks. I don't think it's a legitimate that Park land be developed or that it should suffer through easements that allow utility. I also don't think that it should misunderstand the meaning of free speech so that oppressors and racists get permits, protection and full escorts while those who come to speak out against them get humiliated, scared, and in a couple cases arrested. Some would say that the Klan was exercising free speech, but a look at the scene will tell you something very different.

Free speech means free speech for all. You can't have 'free speech for me but not for thee'. The men at Gettysburg died to preserve America and its Constitution including the First Amendment.

So, you should actually be quite supportive of the actions against the Klan. What is free speech? If by free speech, it is speech that actually contributes to others not being able to have it, is it free? The Klan don't just have racist ideas; their very expression of those ideas is intentionally used as an intimidation against the speech of others. By its noise and intimidation, it actually stops free speech. What's more, free speech in this context is the speech that's permitted by the government in a place reserved for that speech - sometimes known as free speech zones or pens. Those without permits are not allowed to speak and are treated accordingly. Those with permits are tightly controlled. In this case, those with permits were protected while those without them were harrassed by authorities, intimidated, and left in a dangerous situation surrounded by racists. Some have said that campaign finance restrictions go against free speech on the grounds that money used in political campaigns is essentially speech. I won't disagree with that. I will disagree that the unlimited spending of money equates to "free" speech since there is a great imbalance in money. Those with more can speak so loudly by dominating the air waves that those with little get their speech drowned out. Their free speech has actually been impeded by the speech of others. The Klan have and intend to do the same thing. Many would not show up to speak against the Klan because they were very frightened by what might happen. That's exactly as the Klan intends it. Their speech of hate and disempowerment is not free speech, and it should not be tolerated. Any tolerance of it is complicity with overt racism and against free speech. And, the use of a utilities easement for a sub-development may be seen as a free right without qualification for anyone who own property. However, the use of that so called right in a way that disrupts the access by all to Harpers Ferry Historical Park actually is contradictory to the freedom that's supposed by the right. Freedom does not exist in a vacuous, meaningless space. It exists always among a community of inter-relations. When that community is violated by the use of what's called freedom, then it's a misuse of the word. The Klan is not just some other group with boneheaded ideas. They use their speech much the way the developer destroys land by digging ditches. Freedom is for all, and that's exactly why the Klan should be opposed. Jim P.S. You'd think it was all political, but I actually just wrote a different kind of tale about my experiences in Yellowstone: http://www.yellowstone-online.com/2007/01/my-happily-unsuccessful-hike-on-mt.html I don't think it's altogether irrelevant to our discussion. Briefly, I came upon moose one day in Yellowstone that stopped me in my tracks. I had to stop moving along the trail. Not all limits are detriments to freedom; we have to think about the way something limits us and why.

Jim, I believe, and think what your saying is that...we really don't live in a "free country"! Right?

Not if Jim has his way and only groups Jim approves of get to speak in public.

Well, that and a bit more. I'm suggesting that in the way that free speech is managed by the government, that it's a fiction that there actually is equal access to speech regardless of what one believes. I'm also suggesting, though, that not all use of speech constitutes free speech. I know that the Supreme Court said this in denying that if one yells "fire" in a movie theater where there is no fire that that should be considered protected free speech (although I guess this was ironically in a case used to stop people in the IWW who were speaking out against war and were subsequently prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917.) What the KKK does is not a simple act of expressing an opinion. It's not that they simply have racist opinions; it's that they speak those racist opinions in a way that actually stops or intimidates others from speaking. It's much like yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire. The Park Service at Harper's Ferry not only protected this speech, they further protected and helped the Klan to their speaking zone. They also gave privilege to the Klan over others who chose not to succumb to the permit process. I think the same thing happens in the blind eye often given toward those who abuse their claims to private property. Where that happens and the Park Service fights back, it's a wonder to me they don't apply the same principle to the KKK when they abuse their speech.

kath, I hope it's not only because I approve of the group; are we such moral relativists about everything that we can't determine the difference between free speech and oppressive speech? If we can't, then I don't even see the point of having a hard line about what "free speech" even means since that too will be relative. You have no basis for the claim that I oppose the Klan only because I disapprove of them. That's an ad hominem, and I'd hope we'd discuss reasons and not me.

In the line of what Jim says, I agree. The reason why one is not "free" to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater where there is no fire is because that speech endangers the public around that person. In the same way, giving the KKK this platform endangers the public around the KKK. It wasn't that long ago that (and some believe it still goes on) that the KKK lynched and killed hundreds of African-Americans and others who sympathize with the Civil Rights movement. By allowing the KKK these platforms at high-profile, NPS sites, isn't the NPS, by default, allowing the KKK to further their message of hate, and recruit more to "their cause", thus potentially putting people in danger of their lives?