You seem to be saying that if person is unable to go against what they know to be true, then they're not truly free. Pope Leo XIII quoted St Augustine on this very point, who said that argument cannot be right, because God is supremely free and is unable to go against what He knows to be true. So being free does not depend on being able to choose the wrong, it means being able to choose between different goods. The fact we can choose the wrong is a limitation/defect due to the fact we are finite: which is why even when we choose what we know is wrong, we do so seeing some apparent good in the choice.I find this distinction to be useful. The freedom to choose between different goods on the one hand and the freedom to choose between good and evil on the other. The first kind of freedom is what Christians talk about when they say they are free. It is only really experienced when we choose good over evil. Sin enslaves us. So the more we sin the less free we are. So we must first choose to turn from sin to experience this freedom.
Like when you give a child the freedom to cross the road by himself. There is a dignity there. But his freedom does not depend on him potentially running in front of a car. Quite the opposite. It depends on him understanding that he never wants to do that. The true freedom of crossing the road comes when you get that. Then you can safely walk anywhere you want in the city. That is a much greater freedom than the freedom to run in front of a moving car.
So focusing on our freedom to choose evil if we want deprives us of the greater freedom that comes from choosing the good consistently. We can go out into the world of dangerous ideas and dangerous temptations and fear no evil because we have learned to trust God. We are free to be sources of truth and beauty and goodness.