You seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom of press.

Generally freedom of press is greater in areas where it matters. When the press can't speak about a thing, oftentimes your ordinary person can't either.

Treating freedom of speech as completely disjoint from freedom of press is wrong.

That is quite irrelevant. We're talking about freedom of speech here. Not the freedom of the press. When I think of freedom of speech, I have a simple question. If I say something that one finds offensive, am I committing a crime and will be prosecuted for my words? That's the only criteria I have. Now, the consequences that come from saying what you want, for eg. losing a job, or business - those have nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Obviously there are exceptions, in the form of breaking contracts. Can't go around leaking classified information or industrial secrets - contracts you agreed to when you signed up for the gig.

You can't even report on snowden revelations in the US without the government coming after you. I don't need to tell you to what lengths the US government went going after Snowden himself.

If you can't even exercise free speech where it really matters in regards to your democracy, you hardly have total freedom of speech.

Also Snowden is hardly the only example of whistleblowers from within a branch of a democratic government speaking out. However the US is an extreme outlier in how it handled the matter.

Another thing many western democracies manage to do without is an equivalent to the US's National Security Letters, which are also a form of the government policing speech where it might matter.

So apparently you have to be afraid to speak out when it really matters, but at least you can deny the holocaust I guess.