‘Good Trouble Lives On' and ‘Free America Weekend' protests head to Alabama in July
Here's what to know about the protests and how you can participate.
Free America Weekend Protest in Alabama
Free America Weekend, a grassroots event organized by the Women's March will blend the Independence Day celebration with a call to protect democracy and freedom for all, taking place on July 4.
From block parties and marches to backyard gatherings and art projects, participants nationwide will come together to express joyful resistance against political division and threats to civil rights. The event encourages locals to celebrate freedom while standing up for freeing America from the grips of the wealthy rigging the system, poverty, unfair job firings and a rising tide of hate and fear politics.
Here's where you can participate in the Free America Weekend events in Alabama:
Montgomery: Food & School Supply Drive, July 4, 10 a.m. to Noon, The NewSouth Bookstore, 105 S. Court Street, Montgomery.
Gadsden: Moragne Park, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. 100 Moragne Avenue, Gadsden. Fireworks will follow at 9 p.m., and food vendors will be located along 411.
The Good Trouble Lives On Protest in Alabama
On July 17, a nationwide day of nonviolent protest will take place to honor the legacy of Georgia Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis, who was born in Troy, Ala. The protest builds on earlier demonstrations held nationwide this summer in response to policies under the Trump administration.
The movement, called Good Trouble Lives On, is set to take place in cities across the U.S., including several in Alabama, and marks the fifth anniversary of Lewis' death. Organizers say the goal is to push back against efforts they view as threats to voting rights, justice and dignity.
Here's where you can attend a Good Trouble Lives On event:
Birmingham: Horton Enterprise Studio, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., 1111 5th Ave N., Birmingham
Center Point: Center Point Senior Center, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., 335 Polly Reed Rd NE, Center Point
Mobile: Protests are planned in Mobile from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., but there is no current meeting point.
This story was updated to correct a typo.
Jennifer Lindahl is a Breaking and Trending Reporter for the Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Connect with her on X @jenn_lindahl and email at jlindahl@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Montgomery Advertiser: Are 'Good Trouble' and 'Free America' protests happening in Alabama?
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
WKRG News 5 to host Mobile mayoral debate: How to watch and submit questions
MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) — The four candidates running for mayor of Mobile have agreed to participate in a live, primetime debate on WKRG News 5. The debate will take place on Monday, Aug. 4, from 7-8 p.m. Viewers can watch the debate on WKRG-TV or the WKRG+ app, stream it on or watch on WKRG's Facebook page. Former District Judge Spiro Cheriogotis, State Rep. Barbara Drummond, County Commissioner Connie Hudson and former Police Chief Paul Prine are vying for the seat currently held by Sandy Stimpson. Stimpson is not running for a fourth term in office. will moderate the debate. Questions will be formulated by News 5 and submitted by viewers and the candidates themselves. Ask your question here: Submit a form. Interest in the mayor's race is intense, as this is the first election in 20 years without an incumbent running. Election Day is Aug. 26. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, the top two vote-getters will meet in a runoff election on Sept. 23. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Washington Post
Columbia agreed to a monitor, stoking fears about independence
Columbia University agreed to pay more than $200 million to settle allegations of civil rights violations from the Trump administration. It agreed to a long list of changes on campus. But one concession struck some observers as particularly troubling: an outside monitor to assure the school complies. To critics, the deal represents an unprecedented governmental intrusion into the affairs of a private university that could erode the independence of universities across the country. The White House has said it sees this agreement as a template for other schools that it is investigating for allegations of antisemitism and racial discrimination.
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
Should I Blow the Whistle in a Hiring Process Biased in My Favor?
I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse's occupation. I've spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I'm a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I'm aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments. I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: If you're thinking about taking action, you would be wise to talk with an employment lawyer. But the questions you mention plainly have no place in a job interview. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines are explicit about this: Such questions 'may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate.' Let's assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company's questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her 'divided responsibilities.' This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn't be sure that it was because you were judged the 'safe' candidate. You don't actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics. Suppose, though, that you're offered the job, and it's clear that the process was wrongly stacked in your favor. The moral calculus gets thornier. Is it right to accept a job you need and are qualified for if you know the offer was tainted by bias? Turning down such a position is an especially steep price for you to pay. The internal candidate keeps her job, even if she loses out on the better one she was hoping for. That's significant, but it's not quite the same as going without a paycheck. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. 'Conference, conciliation and persuasion' — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing. But right now you don't have that certainty. Given this, I don't think you need to torch your own prospects. You may take the job if it's offered. Once you're a manager, you'll treat your subordinate with the respect she deserves. You don't owe her a confession about your suspicions, if suspicions are all you have. What you do owe her, and every colleague, is to push for a culture where these questions are never asked of job applicants again. A Bonus Question A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he's her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we're expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won't exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife's funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I'm uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don't want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn't an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don't let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you're mourning. Readers Respond The previous question was from a reader who is tired of a friend talking about wanting to escape the country's current political climate by moving abroad. She wrote: I have a wealthy friend (not billions, but well over $20 million) who talks almost incessantly about leaving the country because of her and her family's concerns about the current political situation. Nearly every week, it's another 'Check this one out!' — always accompanied by a link to a villa in the south of France or a seaside four-bedroom condo overlooking the coast of Spain. I'm not the sort to let money drive a relationship; I don't defer to wealthy people, and I wouldn't expect deference if the roles were reversed. So how do you navigate things when you're simply tired of hearing the same conversation on wash, rinse, repeat? I can't just say: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' That would only create anger. But 'Have you thought about how these comments affect others?' feels condescending. I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell her to stop, or how to do it. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: I can imagine other misgivings you might have about these upscale escape fantasies. When the political weather in your country turns threatening, there's much to be said for staying put, if you safely can, and trying to make things better. Given her resources, your friend might wrest herself from the Sotheby's International Realty website and spend more time reviewing political campaigns that could benefit from her backing. … You don't have to make it a confrontation. There are plenty of ways to signal the realities she's exasperatingly deaf to. The next time she sends you a link to a coastal villa, you might respond with a listing for a studio apartment in a Communist-era block in Bucharest — ample stair climbing, intermittent hot water and panoramic views of concrete — explaining that it better fits your budget. If she's miffed for a minute, that's the price of honesty. And a small one, surely, compared to that spread in Cap Ferrat. Reread the full question and answer here. ⬥ The recommendation that the writer shoot back an equally inappropriate rental suggestion was just petty and passive-aggressive, serving only to irk, if not confuse, the clueless wealthy friend. Honesty among friends is always best. — Bonnie ⬥ I agree that the writer's friend's 'humble brag' is obnoxious and out of touch. I've had friends and relatives like this (in a different tax bracket) over the years who have consistently mentioned vacations that they knew I could never afford as a single mom. I came to wonder if their intentions were really that innocent. To me, it did start to feel meanspirited and condescending … 'nice nasty,' as my grandmother used to call it. Hmmm. Maybe the writer should find some more sensitive friends? — Pier ⬥ Not a fan of the passive-aggressive solution the Ethicist suggests. Better to be straightforward and have an honest conversation with the clueless friend. Something on the order of: 'Deciding to leave our country rather than remaining and working to improve things is absolutely your right. Still, for those of us not inclined to seek that solution, regardless of our personal reasons, we just can't get into your weekly searches. Could you wait until you've actually found your dream home and share that with us? Sharing your joy and the start of your new adventure is something we can celebrate with you.' A polite way of saying, 'We're just not into your ongoing real estate search.' — Emme ⬥ I love what the Ethicist suggests about sending her friend the picture of a meager apartment in Bucharest. That's good! But I don't understand what's wrong with what the writer herself came up with: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' I think that is a direct and genuine response with just the right amount of pique. —Mary Anne ⬥ I think the suggestion that the questioner respond with an 'idealized post-communist flat' was misguided. I think a better suggestion would be to respond with a more modest listing in a nonexotic location that reflects both the economic realities of the questioner and the realities of European life at that finance level. — Brian ⬥ To me, the issue is not what exotic locale to flee to, it's the focus on fleeing, and on that being something some of us may aspire to. My suggested response would be, 'Whatever the situation is, I'm not moving, so please don't send me any more real estate suggestions.' — Linda
