In practice

In practice, however, the type system constrains the programmer in many ways that are unacceptable to Lisp programmers: data cannot be interpreted as programs, lists must be homogeneous, and functions are not easily redefned without recompiling other dependent functions.

>>21
You'd do well to define "freedom" better. The problem with freedom is that it is a loaded word - one that sounds very nice. It is implicitly manipulative when not backed with a more concrete definition of what freedom means (and this is why GNU defines the core freedoms to define what freedom means to them).

For the definition of freedom that involves the ability to make whatever you want, it's blatantly false. Lisp is no more free or less free than any other language. In fact, one might argue that it is less free because you have to have an intimate knowledge of every single corner of the code. There are almost no useful libraries to reuse or use to solve parts of problems.