The closest thing I can think of is the equivocation fallacy, where the meaning of a word or phrase changes as it is used in different places within an argument. But I don't believe the examples you cited are contradictions; they are actually very perceptive. Take "freedom is slavery"; freedom actually is a kind of slavery, in many ways.
One is that the unrestricted "freedoms" we take for granted actually enables exploitation. For example, "free markets" aren't free. Most sectors of the economy are dominated by a small number of corporations, headed by executives that earn hundreds of times as much as their underlings, who they hold captive by the threat of "outsourcing" and poverty. In a similar way, "freedom of speech" isn't free; it allows a small number of media companies to drown out competing discourse and smear dissenting voices as "radical". In general, unrestricted freedom is a tool of repression that allows elites to become vastly more powerful than ordinary people.
Freedom also entraps people in guilt and doubt. As soon as they are free to make decisions, they are responsible for their consequences, and have to agonize over different choices and tradeoffs. When people are free to make choices and don't measure up to what they want to be, or what society expects them to be, they can also be blamed for making those choices.