"Since when do we have to agree with people to defend them from injustice?"
About this Quote
The intent is practical, not sentimental. Hellman is drawing a bright procedural line between justice and affinity. You don’t earn protection by being likable; you’re owed it because the alternative is arbitrary power. The subtext is a warning about what happens when “agreement” becomes the entry fee for basic rights: today’s out-group is tomorrow’s you. It also needles the self-image of liberals who imagine themselves tolerant, then discover their tolerance has fine print.
Context sharpens the edge. Hellman, a left-leaning playwright, wrote this in the shadow of the Red Scare, when careers and lives were wrecked by loyalty tests, blacklists, and coerced naming of names. She wasn’t asking for applause; she was insisting that the rule of law can’t be outsourced to personal taste. The line endures because it exposes a recurring cultural reflex: turning justice into fandom, and treating due process as a reward rather than a restraint on cruelty.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
| Cite |
Citation Formats
APA Style (7th ed.)
Hellman, Lillian. (2026, January 15). Since when do we have to agree with people to defend them from injustice? FixQuotes. https://fixquotes.com/quotes/since-when-do-we-have-to-agree-with-people-to-10163/
Chicago Style
Hellman, Lillian. "Since when do we have to agree with people to defend them from injustice?" FixQuotes. January 15, 2026. https://fixquotes.com/quotes/since-when-do-we-have-to-agree-with-people-to-10163/.
MLA Style (9th ed.)
"Since when do we have to agree with people to defend them from injustice?" FixQuotes, 15 Jan. 2026, https://fixquotes.com/quotes/since-when-do-we-have-to-agree-with-people-to-10163/. Accessed 6 Feb. 2026.









