In 1975, attorney Alan Isaacman delivered these powerful words during his defense of Larry Flynt, founder of the Hustler magazine, in a case before the court in Cincinnati, Ohio:

“We live in a free country, and that is a truly remarkable idea. It is an extraordinary way to live. But there is a price for this freedom, and that price is that sometimes we must tolerate things we don’t like. Go into that room, where you are free to think whatever you like about Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine, but ask yourselves if you’re willing to make a decision on behalf of all of us. The freedom we enjoy is genuinely in your hands. If we start banning what some consider obscene or offensive, we may wake up one day to find that the ban has extended to things we never expected. At that point, we will become slaves, unable to see or do anything freely. And that is not freedom.”

At the time, publishing sexually explicit photographs was prohibited under U.S. law, yet Hustler specialized in such content. This led to multiple lawsuits aimed at shutting down the magazine or forcing Flynt to change its content. These efforts ranged from legal challenges to illegal actions, such as the assassination attempt that left Flynt paralyzed.

When a small group decides to limit freedoms, it is effectively making a decision for the entire population. Regardless of the arguments used to justify such restrictions, the reality is that these decisions are often driven by narrow ideological views that do not represent everyone equally. When people allow authorities to ban something in the name of protecting beliefs or traditions, they unwittingly grant the power to suppress anything in the future.

This dynamic is all too familiar in parts of the world where freedoms have been curbed under the guise of safeguarding religion, customs, or traditions. Over time, these restrictions accumulate, leaving people unable to exercise even the most basic rights. Freedom of expression becomes an empty term, devoid of any real-world application.

In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Larry Flynt. What started as a magazine with a modest circulation grew to reach millions. The victory wasn’t just Flynt’s—it paved the way for tens of thousands of others like him. A large, deeply religious segment of the American population had to accept what they found repugnant to preserve what they cherished. The Supreme Court sided with a purveyor of pornography against one of America’s most beloved Christian figures, Jerry Falwell, because Flynt was advocating for freedom while Falwell sought censorship. Had the court banned Hustler, America would not be the same today.

Freedom is a package deal. It includes both the good and the bad, and we must accept it in its entirety or risk losing it altogether. Freedom cannot be selective. It is the raw material for building any political or economic power. Freedom safeguards against the overreach of authority and is the foundation for creativity and innovation.

We often ask why we lag behind while others progress. The answer lies in our rejection of freedom for some, which has resulted in the loss of freedom for all. We have become slaves in every sense of the word.

When asked why he filed a lawsuit against Jerry Falwell after already winning his initial case, Larry Flynt replied, “If the law can protect me, the worst among you, then it will certainly protect everyone equally.”

Justice is not the foundation of governance; freedom is. For it is freedom that lays the groundwork for justice.

Freedom means accepting what we don’t like to preserve what we do.