There are two types of freedom. These are "advanced" freedom discussion topics. Your pioneers in the subject of liberalism were well-aware of the two types of freedom.

There is negative liberty which is being unrestrained from doing anything. Generally, when most people discuss liberty, they are only aware of negative liberty.

There is positive liberty which is the ability to reach your fundamental purpose. Positive liberty is the hardest to define and most controversial aspect of liberty. It is this aspect that earlier liberals were more concerned with not negative liberty which is what more people generally care about today.

An argument where a person says they believe in freedom but then believes drugs should be made illegal because drugs are harmful to people, even if it's people who make the choice to use them is a classic framing of positive liberty over negative liberty.

The argument that you can't be pro-freedom and in support of banning books that promote sexual promiscuity in children is an argument rooted only in the concept of negative liberty. A proponent of positive liberty would likely make the argument that banning such books from being taught to children in public schools would actually promote positive liberty.

Truthfully, I think the concepts most people have of "liberty" are flawed nor do I think "liberty" is actually something worth having for the sake of it. The freedom to be evil is not useful in a society of good people. What is good or evil? That is the pertinent question and the pursuit of good the more important over the pursuit of liberty though both often overlap. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In my own words. Only good people deserve freedom to do good and evil people do not deserve freedom at all.