No. It objectively indicates a different comprehension of what freedoms are important and what are not. Some self-described socialist candidates have an authoritarian bent, just like self-described conservatives, classical liberals, neo-liberals, libertarian socialists, and libertarians. But you have to figure that out on a case-by-case basis.
Freedom is not a purely a priori issue we can discuss from our armchairs. One has to consider what freedom real human beings need and want, which means knowing actual human psychology, culture, economics, etc. One has to consider the real costs of protecting certain freedoms. This is a microcosm of the gun debate: The very issue at question is how far the liberty of a private citizen to own a weapon can meaningfully extend before everyone else's rights to security and doing business without being criminally intimidated extends.
Socialist candidates usually emphasize the freedoms of the poor and the positive rights of access to food, water, shelter, medical care, etc. They tend to view capitalism as causing a harm that government must in the short-term at least stop. That's a coherent position.