It's neither. It's a puerile attempt to evade facts, of history, philosophy, criminology, etc, etc, because the person's intellectual position cannot be defended on any of those. The shift to falsely claiming superior moral standing is the last gasp of the intellectually bankrupt. 

The only relevant moral part of the argument is justified moral outrage, like mine, at such a blatant appeal to emotion contra reality.

The larger moral issue is liberty. What is immoral is to attack liberty using known falsehoods and misrepresentations while simultaneously claiming some kind of mantle of progressive enlightenment, when it is individual liberty itself that is the foundation -of- the Enlightenment.