The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

[Zorra]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So what do we do now that our constitutional right to peaceably assemble is no longer recognized by the Wall St. government?

Is a nationwide general strike in order?

Should we now call for a nationwide General Assembly, the purpose of which is to set a date for what will be the largest general strike in the history of the world?

It's time.

[PETRUS]

1. The road we're on could lead there.

Or the PtB could throw enough crumbs to pacify the populace. Or we could find ourselves under martial law.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. It is the most important thing before us, to solidify and enforce those words.

[FarCenter]

3. Bring suit and bump it up the the Supreme Court

They get to say what the First Ammendment means.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I say yes. Since our govt is now corporate, and they don't respect the constitution

We need to move forward with this movement.

[Nye Bevan]

5. OWS was shut down? That sucks. I hadn't heard. (nt)

[elocs]

6. Believing there will be a general strike in the U.S. is the height of fantasy.

Unlike Europe, we have no history of general strikes. Unions are very weak in this country at this time.

Who would strike? Republicans: no. Independents: maybe some. Democrats: again, maybe some. Not much of a "general" strike, is it?

Until they can manage to muster 100,000 on any one day in an Occupy city there is little chance of there being a general strike in any particular Occupy city and until there is at least one major city that strikes there will be no general strike nationwide.

Now I could strike since I am single, have some money saved up, and don't have much to lose. But most of the lower half of the 99% are really leading lives of quiet desperation and cannot simply walk off their jobs since many are only in truth a few paychecks away from the street.

So you see, I'm much more impressed by someone who truly has something tangible and valuable to lose from a general strike. Someone willing to truly put their career and their family and their future at risk. If not, it's a simple matter to call for a general strike, isn't it? It's easy to demand that others have the courage of one's convictions if they have much more to lose and your risk is far less.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Reaching for the history hat

actually yes, we do have a history of strikes, just NOT RECENT. And there is a reason for that.

The height of strikes actually happened in the period between 1933 and 1953, the last strike. I could point to 1948 and the rise of a middle class.

Regardless, the history is there.

I also will point out that the General Strike in Aukland was given zero chances of going off.

You will see strikes, we have entered an era where that is happening. No, labor is not leading this, but if you think Aukland was an aberration... buckle up.

Will we have a national strike? Not now, it is too early. But if things continue the way they are... remember those famous words, never will happen... you might eat them. And I am serious. A few people here ate those same words over Aukland.

[elocs]

14. The key words truly are "NOT RECENT", because that was then and this is now.

Now labor union membership is 11.9% and in 1948 it was 30.8% and THAT is a significant difference.

The unemployment rate in 1948 was 3.8% which would seem to be heaven now compared to our 9%++ that are out of work. My guess is that those who risk their jobs by walking off for a general strike might find many unemployed anxious to take it for less money.

How about household debt and bankruptcies in 1948 compared to today. It was damn small then in comparison to today.

There's nothing wrong in indulging in fantasies as long as you realize they are fantasies. One common one here is to simply nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders and they would somehow magically be elected. Fantasy.

Never say never, but a general strike in the U.S. is as likely as Michelle Bachmann being elected President of the United States.

[Zorra]

10. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,

deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

Smart man.

Most of the 99% will lose far more in the long run if nothing is done.

[Thinkingabout]

8. The same effort could also go for 2nd Amendment!

How high would NRA jump. Reading Libertian blog and poster was complaining about Rothchilds running everything and wondered how long it was going to take them to realize the Occupy Movement is for the 99% which I am pretty sure most of their readers are and they sit back with their nasty remarks. Look for some of Ron Paul backers to join the Occupy movement because he has stated this is Libertian movement. Time will tell.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Alas occupy does have a few Paulists

since it is not a Democratic or Republican movement.

If you go down to your local occupy you will see that too.

[JDPriestly]

11. The interesting thing is that this Amendment specifically prohibits

government from making any law that would so much as abridge the freedom of speech.

Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the right of free speech is subject to all kinds of laws, rules regulations -- time, place and manner -- precisely what the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits.

[Scuba]

12. I would recommend not jumping ahead. The next step should be...

... to determine if the voters of the country are awake. We'll find out in November 2012.


After seeing the results of that election, then consider the next move.

[Zorra]

13. OK. Maybe set a tentative date for Jan 20, 2013 or

the first weekday prior to Independence Day, 2013.

You apparently have a whole lot more faith and trust in the status quo than I do. But that's not too hard, since I (irrevocably) lost all my faith and trust in our ability to change things significantly for the better through the electoral process on election day 2010. I use to think it was all just Kabuki Theater for the entertainment of the 1%.

But now I know it.
:hi:

[redgiant]

15. Here's the problem

"right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Some people seem to think that any "non-violent" action is "peaceable."

If I and a bunch of my friends protest something you've done by non-violently blocking your entry into your home and refuse your directive to move, and resist your effort to physically move us, is that peaceable?

Hint: It is not. You have every expectation of being able to call the cops to *make* us move to enforce your right to enter your own home.

Likewise, the first amendment does not allow violation of laws unrelated to free speech/assembly issues JUST BECAUSE you are exercising those rights. Thus, laws against camping, fires, noise, trespass, sanitation, littering, vandalism, obstructing traffic, etc., etc., etc. are not waived because you claim the protection of the first amendment.

[redgiant]

16. Related info from the ACLU

It's a good overview of the general concepts. What I take from the discussion is that civil disobedience, e.g., blocking street traffic, is a protest activity outside of normal First Amendment protection. One can certainly choose to engage in civil disobedience, however, one can't claim the first amendment protects them from arrest or other police action.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrations-and-protests

[Zorra]

17. I like this part best:

Where can I engage in free speech activity?

Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional "public forums" such as streets, sidewalks and parks. In addition, your speech activity may be permitted to take place at other public locations that the government has opened up to similar speech activities, such as the plazas in front of government buildings.
:shrug:

[redgiant]

18. Tell you what...

...let's take it to the Supreme Court and see if that's interpreted to mean

1) Show up, state your point, wave your signs, hand out your leaflets, clean up your shit and go home.

or...

2) Show up, violate numerous municipal codes, and stay, and stay, and stay.

Wanna bet which one wins?