In the time of America’s “Occupy” movement, governments are poised to make it illegal for the people to occupy public spaces.

That’s what happened in Nashville at the end of last week. Authorities in that city had decided that they could no longer tolerate an encampment near the state Capitol in the capital city, so the Republican governor, Bill Haslam, imposed a curfew for the protesters, and then ordered a law enforcement sweep of the area three times last week.

The same happened to other “Occupy” sites around the country, including Oakland, Cal., and Atlanta. What we consider to be the commons, public spaces that are ostensibly owned by the people, have been removed from their control by the incremental removal of citizens’ rights by moving those “commons” into shopping malls and other “closed” spaces. Corporate America has claimed that, even though these have become the places where people congregate (instead of, say, the village square), there is no place there for free speech or exercise of the right of assembly…because they are now private property.

This is what has happened to some of the rights under the U.S. Constitution. The place to exercise them has been moved from public space, to private property, and the owner of that property can call the cops if someone hands out leaflets or tries to speak to patrons of the mall. It can, and often does, happen in America.

Last week, a Nashville official, was heard to say that the city could not afford to “baby sit” protesters in the “Occupy” encampment. Since when does any official see the protection of citizens in the exercise of their rights as “baby sitting?” The arrogance of the man who uttered the statement is palpable. But, it is likely that such officials have been emboldened to take such an attitude, because they feel they have been unleashed by the governor.

The question now is: Who owns the public spaces in the U.S. and who determines who may be present in those spaces, whether for five minutes or for days or months?

In Nashville last week, one of the protesters noted that the 10 p.m. curfew that obviously had been directed at the “Occupy” participants, was ignored by law enforcement officials for patrons of nearby theaters, when they strolled through the public space, probably spending money. Is that what makes the difference? If not, what did?

A magistrate in Nashville, as state police were bringing protesters to jail, said that he could find “no authority” for anyone to authorize a curfew on Legislative Plaza, according to the Associated Press. Two nights of arrest warrants were dismissed. On the third night, there were no arrests. The magistrate, Tom Nelson, seems to get the constitutional issue.

Last week in Oakland, an Iraq War veteran, Scott Olsen, 24, was wounded by what was described as a police projectile, possibly a tear gas canister, when the cops moved in to clear the Occupy encampment area. He was taken to a hospital in serious condition, which was later upgraded, to fair, but his brain injury caused doctors to put him into a coma. They said he should recover. Within hours, the mayor, Jean Quan, Oakland’s first Asian-American mayor, apologized for the attempt to cleanse the area and for the veteran’s injury. Oakland is “definitely part of the 99 percent,” she told the New York Times. Although she tried to meet with the protesters after the incident, they rejected her and told her to “go home.”

In Chicago, Atlanta, Orlando, and other cities, it was a similar situation, with officials sending in the police to clear the areas where the Occupy people were gathered. One exception was in New York’s capital city, Albany, where Albany County’s first African-American district attorney termed the encampment “a wonderful protest” and said he would not be sending anyone in to clear out the gathering, as long as it remains peaceful.

The movement that started as “Occupy Wall Street” is being viewed by some as the “American Autumn,” likening it to the “Arab Spring,” a period when the people of several Middle East nations freed themselves of oppressive governments. The “Occupy” movements in the U.S. are in protest of a broken system of governance, the near impossibility of graduates to find jobs that will allow them to pay off their student loans, unrelenting high unemployment, and the grossest disparity in income and wealth in the U.S. since the Great Depression.

Authorities around the country are fearful that the Occupy movement could escalate into something like the Arab Spring. Politicians of every stripe are keeping their distance. Republicans, who have voted against most social programs at every level of government, call the “occupiers” anarchists and “lawless.” Some Democrats are faintly praising them, while others are in weak support of them, but from afar.

But the movement has brought a sharp focus on the political and social problems that brought them into the streets in the first place and the discussion is highlighting the “1 percent versus the 99 percent.” This discussion has been ongoing for a few decades, but it has not gained any traction until now. Lines are being drawn between those in power who are willing to do something, and right-wingers, especially Republicans, whose only answer to any proposal to alleviate poverty and suffering is, “No!”

Most Americans know the problems. They are living them. Now, the idea is to flesh out the solutions and make politicians and other leaders stand up and say what they are willing to do and planning to do, to change laws and policy that will put people back to work and provide some kind of equity in the system. Considering the condition of the environment, solutions will require a new way of looking at the nation and the world, but everyone can do productive work and should be given the opportunity to do so. It’s what “community” is about.

In a way, that’s what retaking the commons is all about. The people traditionally have owned the commons. Rather, in reality, no one owns the commons: clean air, clean and drinkable water, sunshine, and the thousands of public places throughout the nation. The people are entitled to them and should be allowed to use them and be present in them, at any time. Use of the commons must never be restricted by anyone, under any guise. Yet, that’s what is happening around the country, with few exceptions.

Rights that are protected by the U.S. and state constitutions are being threatened and, if precedents are set by government-corporate action in the “Occupy” movement, the whittling away of our constitutional rights will continue until America will not be recognizable as the “land of the free.”

Occupy Wall Street has been criticized as not having a clear enough focus and that its participants have not articulated what they are looking for, but, to most Americans, according to the polls, the things they are looking for are crystal clear, since again, the polls show that the people understand and support the protesters. Despite the propaganda bought and paid for by the nation’s powerful right wing, the people see it clearly. There are hopeful signs in places like Albany, N.Y., and Nashville, that the powers that be are themselves seeing more clearly.

The movement must not be allowed to falter, because Occupy Wall Street and all of the other “occupy” groups are forcing a wide, immediate, and very public debate that has been ongoing for decades. That’s why they need the support of the 99 percent.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello, is a labor organizer and former union organizer. His union work started when he became a local president of The Newspaper Guild in the early 1970s. He was a reporter for 14 years for newspapers in New York State. In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food producers and land developers. Click here to contact Mr. Funiciello.