Here's a case of a man who was arrested for daring to write a book which criticised the use of the death penalty in Singapore: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/07/singapore-alan-shad.... I doubt he thinks the trade-off you propose for these (putative) "different kinds of freedom" is a good one.
Also: what you refer to as "freedom from" liberties seemed to inevitably involve infringing another's "freedom to". As such, it seems improper to term them "freedom".
The fact that some prefer a happy face dictatorship to a system which affords a large measure of actual liberty seems to me a very sad commentary on the human condition.
Edited: I can't seen to reply the comment below, so adding the reply here. One of the things my country takes very seriously is both the perception and actual oppression of minorities. In this case, we want ethnic minorities to have the freedom from majority oppression. As an example, there are measures that are put in place that prevents some of our freedom to say certain stuff about the religion Islam in a certain way. To say the rules are like a cudgel instead of a scapel would be right but as a citizen I can see where my government is coming from.
Like the comment below said, generally yes to freedom to instead of freedom from. What is considered not a general case in Singapore differs; that does not make us wrong. Neither does it mean our system is right and perfect. What it does mean is my country is learning and hopefully maturing.
Generally, yes, it is.
Read "Brave New World" and see if any of the things depicted there ring a bell.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/