Newspeak vs. Oldspeak: Is Language Freedom?

In 1984, Oceania is in the process of creating a new language as part of their revolution. Why do they choose to do this? All of Ingsoc's actions are related to limiting freedom, so it can be assumed that Newspeak is designed to restrict people. How does Ingsoc espect a different language to stem freedom? Are they right in thinking this? Newspeak attempts to take away concepts by removing the words for them. It removes shades of meaning, synonyms, antonyms, and many descriptors to create a mechanical language devoid of beauty. In adding to a sense of hopelessness and dull, singleminded purpose, Newspeak works well. But are concepts really dependent on language? If a word is removed, does the thing it names cease to exist?
Concepts can be limited by language, but not defined by it. The only way to remove a concept completely is to actually remove the concept. For example, to remove the idea of freedom, Ingsoc plans to remove the word free. To remove the concept, they would have to eliminate all freedoms: freedom of thought and emotion as well as physical freedom and freedom of speech. It would be impossible to do this completely, so they will never completely remove the idea of freedom. However, it will be severely limited. Humans think in words. With the limitations of newspeak, people would have a vague concept of freedom, but would not be able to understand it without words to organize and express it. As Syme says, "Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of conciousness always a little smaller,"(55). This shows how adept Ingsoc has grown at limiting thought through language. Even if it cannot work completely, Newspeak works well enough for Ingsoc's purposes. The concepts may still exist, but only as fragments to vague to expand into something more dangerous.