Southern Poverty Law Center Supports Removal of “For Freedoms” Billboard
**The Controversy Surrounding the For Freedoms Billboard in Montgomery: Art, Politics, and Public Discourse**
The concept of artistic expression often serves as a catalyst for challenging discussions, and when it intersects with politics and history, the implications can be deeply polarizing. This was evident in the controversy surrounding a billboard in Montgomery, Alabama, designed by the prominent arts collective, For Freedoms. The billboard featured Spider Martin’s iconic 1965 photograph “Two Minute Warning,” captured on Bloody Sunday—a watershed moment in the Civil Rights Movement—juxtaposed with the phrase “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), famously associated with former President Donald Trump’s political campaigns. The installation sparked debate over its message, historical context, and artistic intention, ultimately leading to the billboard’s removal.
### **Context Behind the Controversy**
The For Freedoms billboard was installed as part of a broader artistic dialogue ahead of an exhibition of Spider Martin’s works at the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts. Martin’s image, which depicts Alabama state troopers advancing menacingly on Civil Rights leaders Hosea Williams and John Lewis during the Selma to Montgomery march, embodies the pain and resilience of the fight for voting rights. However, its juxtaposition with the MAGA slogan—widely criticized as a divisive and racially charged phrase—led to differing interpretations and fierce backlash.
Montgomery Mayor Steven L. Reed, the city’s first Black mayor, called for the billboard’s removal, describing it as a “politicized” representation of a “pivotal moment” in the nation’s history. Reed emphasized that a historical event like Bloody Sunday, which symbolizes sacrifice and hard-fought progress for racial equality, should not be reframed in a way that could distract from its original intent.
### **Key Players in the Debate**
The issue drew reactions from a range of stakeholders, from government officials to civil rights organizations, artists, and community members. Tafeni English-Relf, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)’s Alabama State Office, publically supported the mayor’s call for removal. In a statement, English-Relf argued that the MAGA slogan “disrespects John Lewis’s legacy” and undermines the progress for which activists fought. She contended that the phrase’s inclusion in the image came across as an erasure of Black Americans’ contributions to the Civil Rights Movement.
Conversely, others viewed the removal as an infringement upon artistic freedom and as a missed opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Spider Martin’s daughter, Tracy Martin, expressed disappointment with the decision, framing it as a “violation of freedom of speech.” She defended For Freedoms’ intent, stating that the billboard was meant to provoke deeper reflection on the phrase “Make America Great Again” and its implications. According to her, the design prompts audiences to consider the question: “When was America great?”
### **Art as a Tool for Social and Political Commentary**
The controversy underscores the role of art in sparking powerful discussions about history, race, and politics. Since its founding, For Freedoms has been known for blending creativity with civic engagement. The collective’s use of provocative messaging often aims to challenge viewers’ assumptions and inspire discourse around inequities and social justice.
Nevertheless, the billboard’s reception highlights the fine line that artists walk when interpreting sensitive historical events. While art can serve as an educational medium, it is also subject to interpretation, and its messaging may not always land as intended. As Tafeni English-Relf noted, the original 2016 version of the billboard—displayed in Mississippi—provoked valuable historical and political conversations. However, the context of its reinstallation in Alabama in 2023 shifted the narrative toward debates about the appropriateness of its symbolism.
### **Freedom of Expression vs. Cultural Sensitivities**
The removal of the billboard raises broader questions about the balance between protecting freedom of expression and respecting historical memory. Supporters of the removal argued that the MAGA slogan is inseparable from contemporary political rhetoric that many associate with xenophobia, racism, and efforts to roll back civil rights protections. By overlaying this phrase on an image of Civil Rights icons confronting state-sanctioned violence, they argued, the work undermined the deep reverence owed to the original context of Bloody Sunday.
On the other hand, critics of the decision, including For Freedoms, maintained that the work was not meant to disrespect or politicize the event but instead to challenge viewers to interrogate how America’s past and present intersect. They argued that art should not aim to provide easy answers but rather provoke difficult questions, even at the risk of controversy.
### **A Broader Reflection on Civic Engagement Through Art**
This incident is not unique in its scope—artists and institutions across the United States increasingly find themselves at the crossroads of art, activism, and politics. Cultural institutions are grappling with increasing scrutiny from a polarized public, often finding themselves tasked with balancing calls for inclusivity and historical