Except that the free speech comparison isn't relevant to XMR at all.
The whole privacy and free speech argument being used is irrelevant. Hell when Snowden said that he was looking at the big picture, not the VERY very small piece that XMR focuses on.
We've known for years that the banking system has been heavily monitored and in some cases that's a good thing. You gotta take the good with the bad.
Just for the record, I hold no XMR and really have no strong feelings about the coin either way, but we are talking about the right to financial privacy which some people believe is a good thing for reasons that are analogous to why free speech in a good thing. So it is a relevant discussion when it comes to XMR, and I don't even understand what you are trying to say when you say Snowden was looking at the "big picture". The scope and scale is irrelevant if we are considering whether a certain freedom is good or bad simply on principal.
Any time you give people more freedom, there are going to be people who abuse that freedom for nefarious purposes. The positive value that a society gains by being able to freely speak and exchange ideas with others so clearly outweighs any negatives, that freedom of speech is held sacred by most modern societies, America especially so.
Of course we know that the banking system is heavily monitored, which is why people who believe in the freedom to have financial anonymity are developing anonymous solutions like XMR. If you don't believe the freedom to financial anonymity is a good thing, then you should also be advocating for the removal of cash from society so that all financial transactions can be on record. If you think that is a dumb idea, then you are saying it is acceptable to sometimes have transactions on record and sometimes not. If there is nothing wrong with financial anonymity for local, in person transactions, why should it be any different online? Especially when you consider that we are living in a highly connected world where an increasing amount of our lives and relationships, both personal and professional, exist solely online. If you believe that the concept of cash in it of itself is a good thing, then why isn't digital cash good?
It remains to be seen if things such as XMR will do more good than harm. The value of such freedom is not as plainly obvious nor as widely accepted as freedom of speech. I find the technology and the questions raised by it interesting and I will always prefer to err on the side of giving too much freedom vs too little freedom, so my opinion is that I support these advancements until I have a good reason not to. Even if I were to never exercise the freedom to have financial anonymity, the idea of a world where that freedom isn't an option and all my financial transactions are forced to be on record and kept in a database somewhere does not sit well with me.