There's literally no way to break down that idea without turning it into some kind of negation of rights.
For you to ever be 'free' from others doing [thing Z], everyone (you, them, everyone else) would have to be precluded from doing anything that might lead to [thing Z] - and suddenly no one can do [thing A], [thing B], [thing C]...
Not only that, but now all it takes is for someone to make a shaky argument for some action potentially leading to [thing Z], and suddenly you or anyone else can be accused of committing that action in pursuit of committing [thing Z], and/or get locked up because of it.
I'm as averse to getting blown up as the next guy, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing a loosely-defined slippery slope when I see one.
It'd be nice to see a world in which it's very rare/difficult for anyone to do certain things - but let's not pretend we can create a world completely 'free' of anything without sacrificing most of our inalienable rights.
I imagine there are people in US government whose solely job is making up terms like this. "Freedom", "Terrorism" are both deep inside people's mind, putting them together sends a powerful message, even though it's a total bullshit when you stop for a second to think of it.
And I'm not interested in the FBI trying to create one.