No one has total and complete freedom.
Every society imposes limits on citizens, and the limits vary according to age, social status, wealth, etc.
Most nations on earth, freedom in a practical sense increases as one's wealth increases.
And freedom, as used by politicians, is a very ambiguous term.
The USA supposedly allows freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but in modern times it means that one is relegated to 'free speech zones' if one wishes to protest.
Meanwhile, whenever the USA wishes to invade another nation, it claims it is doing so in the name of 'freedom.' This despite the fact that citizens of invaded nations seldom believe that the invaders wish to bring 'freedom.'
At the other end of the spectrum, when a citizen complains because a government wishes to limit his private arsenal, the citizen will state that the govt. is usurping his 'freedom.'
Nonetheless, even a prisoner at Gitmo has a freedom of choice, to either comply or attempt to rebel. Of course, prisoners at Gitmo who attempt to go on hunger strikes sometimes get strapped to a gurney and medically force fed. Still, the prisoner made his attempt to resist, so in that way, he had freedom of choice.
I think the term is as ambiguous as the term 'Christian.'
Perhaps we should narrow it somehow...