Plea for Free Speech by Mary Neal

WILL COINTELPRO LET MARY NEAL, "AMERICA'S MOST CENSORED," SPEAK ON THE "SAY YOUR PIECE" Blogtalk broadcast on July 14 at11pm EST?

 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sayyourpiece

(Five(5) url links are in this article asking for net freedom.) Mystery: WILL COINTELPRO LET ME SPEAK TONIGHT ON THE "SAY YOUR PIECE" Blogtalk broadcast on July 14 at 11pm EST? http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sayyourpiece JOIN ME IN ASKING THAT STALKERS STOP CENSORING AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY BLACK PEOPLE! No one was allowed to join Rev. Pinkney Blogtalk Radio Show discussions on Sunday, July 8, 2012, at 5pm EST. I believe the show was censored primarily to hide my reports on gov murders, $16.1 billion food stamp and school lunch budget cuts that Congress is contemplating under the Farm Bill, and a mob attack on a black Florida family. After a white mob attacked the home of 18-year-old Eric Oliver, he was arrested for defending his home, but police REFUSED to take a report on the mob that descended on his property and threatened the family, cussed Oliver's wheelchair-bound mother, and beat his Hispanic friend who was visiting the house. 

Listen to the Rev. Pinkney Show on Sundays (if they let you) at http://t.co/UNpfYWY or Google "MARY NEAL REV PINKNEY." Listen to or speak on the show using your computer, or use the call-in number (347)994.3644. Demand that the Justice Department STOP THE CENSORSHIP ATTACKS AGAINST NET FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE WHO DID NOT DRINK THE KOOL-AID! Rev. Pinkney had to do his entire show on July 8 without his co-host and regular guests. Neither I nor other callers were allowed to reach the most popular Blogtalk show. Furthermore, my telephone phone calls to Rev. Pinkney's phone at 269.925.0001 have been rejected for two weeks. The phone continuously rings, or all calls are immediately directed to voice mail. That is exactly what the CENSORSHIP FORCE does when people try to call me at 678.531.0262, or STALKERS play a lying message that says my phone is out of service! STOP COINTELPRO INTERFERENCE AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICANS' COMMUNICATION. 

Stalkers also attacked the Lawless America website last week - http://lawlessamerica.com/ . William Windsor and a film crew are interviewing over a thousand people in 50 states to film their revelations about judicial and government corruption for a feature movie - "Lawless America - The Movie." If they let you, please check the website and see when/where filming will be done in your city. DEMAND THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TAKE STEPS TO STOP THE INFO WAR AGAINST TRUTH-TELLERS! STOP THE ATTACK ON LADY LIBERTY! As Vice President Joe Biden told Iran, "I SAY TO OUR IRANIAN FRIENDS: Let your people march, let your people speak, release your people from jail, let them have a voice!" This same admonition should apply in America. We reportedly have American troops practicing for domestic war in St. Louis! People need to know about these things. Don't censor us in this land of the "free and brave." Contest these attacks against net freedom. Your emails or ANONYMOUS help is needed. Five(5) url links are in this article.

This is not the first generation to find free speech is one of those laws on paper that officials do not honor. Consider What Ertha Kit went through:  "Back in the 1968, Eartha Kitt was invited to a ladies luncheon at the White House hosted by Lady Bird Johnson. While at the luncheon, Kitt spoke out against the Vietnam War stating, 'You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed. They rebel in the street. They don’t want to go to school because they’re going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam.' After this remark, Kitt was blackballed in the United States and could only perform overseas for the next four years. The FBI and CIA even went as far as investigating her and could only find her to be “foul-mouthed and promiscuous.”
Kitt later said, “The thing that hurts, that became anger, was when I realized that if you tell the truth in a country that says you’re entitled to tell the truth, you get your face slapped and you get put out of work.” http://hotliberals.com/2012/08/24/liberal-catwomen/

See below "A PLEA FOR FREE SPEECH," by Frederick Douglass (Boston, 1860). Blacks are still petitioning for free speech thing in USA in the 21st century although a black person is attorney general. http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/fdouglass/bl-fdoug-freespeech.htm

Boston is a great city - and Music Hall has a fame almost as extensive as that of Boston. Nowhere more than here have the principles of human freedom been expounded. But for the circumstances already mentioned, it would seem almost presumption for me to say anything here about those principles. And yet, even here, in Boston, the moral atmosphere is dark and heavy. The principles of human liberty, even I correctly apprehended, find but limited support in this hour a trial. The world moves slowly, and Boston is much like the world. We thought the principle of free speech was an accomplished fact. Here, if nowhere else, we thought the right of the people to assemble and to express their opinion was secure. Dr. Channing had defended the right, Mr. Garrison had practically asserted the right, and Theodore Parker had maintained it with steadiness and fidelity to the last.

But here we are to-day contending for what we thought we gained years ago. The mortifying and disgraceful fact stares us in the face, that though Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill Monument stand, freedom of speech is struck down. No lengthy detail of facts is needed. They are already notorious; far more so than will be wished ten years hence.

The world knows that last Monday a meeting assembled to discuss the question: "How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?" The world also knows that that meeting was invaded, insulted, captured by a mob of gentlemen, and thereafter broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so. If this had been a mere outbreak of passion and prejudice among the baser sort, maddened by rum and hounded on by some wily politician to serve some immediate purpose, - a mere exceptional affair, - it might be allowed to rest with what has already been said. But the leaders of the mob were gentlemen. They were men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.

These gentlemen brought their respect for the law with them and proclaimed it loudly while in the very act of breaking the law. Theirs was the law of slavery. The law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings they trampled under foot, while they greatly magnified the law of slavery.

The scene was an instructive one. Men seldom see such a blending of the gentleman with the rowdy, as was shown on that occasion. It proved that human nature is very much the same, whether in tarpaulin or broadcloth. Nevertheless, when gentlemen approach us in the character of lawless and abandoned loafers, - assuming for the moment their manners and tempers, - they have themselves to blame if they are estimated below their quality.

No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?

Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.

Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?

It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects - including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.

Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.

The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man's right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right - and there let it rest forever.

Note: Stalkers made the wide spaces in Frederick Douglass speech. I will try to remove the extra space some other time. Thanks for reading and sharing this article about how much things have not changed since slavery officially ended. Blessings!