Immigrant Rights Group Says Its Billboards Opposing Alligator Alcatraz Were Taken Down Under Political Pressure
The Florida Immigrant Coalition's new billboards were restored less than a day after being taken down, but why were they removed in the first place?

Politics moves fast in Florida. Take the case of two new digital billboards opposing the state's Alligator Alcatraz detention camp. The billboards were purchased by the Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC), a statewide coalition of immigrant rights groups.
FLIC's ads were mysteriously taken down last week, less than 24 hours after going up, allegedly because of pressure from a state official. They were restored a day later.
Last Monday afternoon, the FLIC's new digital billboard advertisements appeared at two locations in Miami-Dade County. "Tell Mayor Daniella Levine Cava and County Officials: Sue to stop the Everglades Detention Camp," the ads read.
It's what they call in the communications business a "call to action."
But the next morning, Thomas Kennedy, a policy analyst at FLIC, says the organization got a call from Outfront, the advertising company that operates the billboards, telling them their ads were no longer running.
"The sales guy tells me, 'We're going to have to take this billboard down while our political team gets involved to basically review them,'" Kennedy recalls.
Kennedy says the sales rep at first told him that the company had received a complaint from the Miami-Dade County government that the ads were nonfactual, which was odd, since they didn't make any factual claims.
Kennedy says Outfront offered a refund or an opportunity to modify the text, but he declined. By Wednesday morning, the company had cleared the billboards to go back up.
Kennedy stresses that his gripe isn't with the employee or Outfront so much, but the fact that someone appeared to be using political pressure to silence his organization.
"It's outrageous," he says. "We paid $12,000 for these two billboards."
And the question remains of who called to complain about the ads. Kennedy says that, after pressing more, he received a text from an Outfront sales executive saying that they had not been contacted by someone from Miami-Dade County but rather a state official.
"I spoke with the mayor's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff and they keep saying they did not contact you all to take it down," Kennedy texted. "Was it her political team that called? There's nothing non-factual about the ad so we are just very confused."
"Kevin Guthrie the executive director of Florida Division of Emergency Management is who reached out," the response to Kennedy reads. (The listed phone number did not respond to request for comment.)
The FDEM is the state agency that built and manages the new immigrant detention camp in the Everglades, which officials have gleefully dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz."
The FDEM denies the accusation. "The claims about Executive Director Guthrie are completely false," Stephanie Hartman, an FDEM spokesperson, said in a statement to Reason.
Such an act would be an egregious example of government jawboning—that is, using the threat of government action to indirectly and inappropriately compel private speech.
It's possible that the identity of the complainant was garbled in the game of telephone among Kennedy, the sales rep, and however many other Outfront employees were involved. But it would also be in line with other recent examples of the Florida state government retaliating against disfavored speech, despite Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' campaign to brand the state as "Free Florida."
In June, Florida's child welfare agency sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Orlando Sentinel demanding that it stop interviewing foster families as part of an investigation into a nonprofit associated with DeSantis' wife, Casey DeSantis.
And last year, Florida's state health department threatened local TV stations for running commercials in favor of an abortion amendment to the state constitution, claiming the ads were false and dangerous. A federal judge blocked the department from issuing further threats, writing, "The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is 'false.'"
"They've done this before," Kennedy says. "They do this all the time."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
*Looks around* you mean... cancel culture can come for us?
"The sales guy tells me, 'We're going to have to take this billboard down while our political team gets involved to basically review them,'" Kennedy recalls.
Kennedy says the sales rep at first told him that the company had received a complaint from the Miami-Dade County government that the ads were nonfactual, which was odd, since they didn't make any factual claims.
Oh... *clears throat* muh private kompanie! They aksed nicely. Nothing to see here.
+1 OMG! Somebody was "totally-not-blacklisted" from some billboards in one specific region displaying one specific message and not all over the internet, if not the world, for any message or vague group of messages that may happen to contravene the administration at that moment? OH NOEZ!
They weren't cancelled over the 'entire internet'. There was still Geocities.
Who would ever make such an argument!
The left does that to conservatives all the time, so that makes it ok.
You cheered and defended it when the left did it.
He did. He danced around like a madman celebrating when Trump was kicked off social media, and the administration, FBI, and CIA were controlling what everybody could hear and see on the net. But that wasn't egregious, only company doing a quick internal review is.
I mean Reason would have covered it if it was egregious, right?
No, Sarc. The left does is all the time AND never expects it to never come back around. The first part makes them evil fascists. The second part makes them too stupid to continue to have the vote.
I rarely vote for the right becuase they too often succumb to the desire for revenge instead of just implementing mostly good policy. I never vote for the left because they invent all this shit and create the Overton Window in the first place. One of these things is clearly worse than the other.
If this was covid and the internet you'd be screaming muh private companies.
Sounds like a standard company review for political content.
COVID and the internet.
Anthony Fauci and COVID and the internet.
Hunter Biden and the internet.
Joe Biden and the internet.
The FBI and Joe Biden and the internet.
Joe Biden and Ukraine and the internet.
Hunter Biden and Ukraine and the internet.
Hunter Biden and China and the internet.
Joe Biden and China and the internet.
.,.
...
...
The billboards taken down will be repurposed as sleep cots for the illegal aliens being detained.
Jawboning Jabroni
Meh, it is just a blatant Constitutional violation on the part of Republicans. Nothing to see here, happens every day.
When Democrats do it it's lawfare. When Republicans do it it's retribution.
You and molly both cheered covid censorship. Your hypocrisy doesn't work here.
What's wrong with suppressing misinformation?
Cry harder.
Sign, sign
Everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery
Breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that
Can't you read the sign?
The billboard was, like the illegal alien garbage in the US, only temporary.
Buh-bye
the ads were nonfactual, which was odd, since they didn't make any factual claims
Now, I may be a simple, back country hyper-chicken, but it seems to me that if you're going to put up or buy a billboard to inform or otherwise serve the public interest, it's probably not a good idea to assert that actually is non-factual. You know, the way using the Mayor's likeness in a piece of graffiti would be non-factual.
But then, I'm also one of those back country hyper-chickens who think Douglass Mackey shouldn't have been arrested either.
"The Florida Immigrant Coalition's new billboards were restored less than a day after being taken down, but why were they removed in the first place?"
Could it be because the immigrant coalition didn't pay the advertisers, or the advertiser owner didn't like the message?
Funny how Reason didn't look into the reason why the ad was taken down.
Almost as funny as the omission of names of the groups making up Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC), a statewide coalition of immigrant rights groups.
Hey correctly assume most of us are to lazy to look up those groups on the web to determine they are all leftist.
You know, if I were a political activist who could only afford a billboard for one day and were looking to get more than one day's worth of free advertising mileage out of it; you know what I would do?
"It's outrageous," he says. "We paid $12,000 for these two billboards."
Hahahahahahahaha! As opposed to buying $12,000 worth of food and toilets for the residents of A-Traz?
Priorities.
Trespassers rights?