Is an individual's freedom to do something more important than another individual's freedom from something? My country takes a rather paternalistic view on thi

Is an individual's freedom to do something more important than another individual's freedom from something? My country takes a rather paternalistic view on this but like I said, i am casually optimistic that things will change and we as a country are moving towards a more informed citizenry renegotiating the social compact between the govt and people and finding a balance in both positive and negative liberties. 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.