It's an imagined difference. Picture two people, each working to get a particular book banned. One is a petty moralizer trying to impose his likes and dislikes on everyone, and the other is legitimately fighting for what he believes will make society healthier. How do I tell which is which when their actions are identical?

> petty moralizer

This defines them as identical. Morals are what people think makes society better, and their absence worse.

There's lots of other ways to dislike something besides morals.

For example, I don't like spectator sports. It's not a moral issue, just taste, so me not watching sport is genuinely sufficient.

Conversely, I think analytics tracking is harmful to society even though I also find it interesting to see the results, and should be banned. Me simply not using it isn't enough.

Anti-porn people? I disagree with them. If they are motivated by religious fundamentalism, then I disagree with the foundation of their worldview. But this is how it is not simply enough to respond with "if you don't like it, don't buy it".