I take issue with several of your characterizations.

First is that "nostr" is a thing to be judged in an overall sense as in "Nostr has no morals". Nostr is both a technology and a network of things, and I'd prefer if you judge them independently.

For example, you could judge an aspect of the technology: is NIP-04 immoral? Perhaps, since it suggests certain actions that exposes metadata about someone's secret dealings. Is it's protocol lacking in the means to report on bad content? Actually no: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/56.md

Or you could judge a nostr relay: Is it immoral for some particular relay operator to fail to filter out information about Elon's jet? You make the call.

But I can't comprehend how to judge nostr 'overall', in the same sense that I wouldn't say that "the Internet has no morals."

Second, by implication, that people who believe in free speech have no morals. I consider myself highly moral. I recognize that I cannot ask others to do what I will not do myself, and in treating others as equal to myself I have concluded on a standard by which we can compromise our desires: free speech. That means I have to allow others to say things I would prefer they don't, and in return I will be allowed to say what I believe needs to be said. There are very many situations in which somebody needs to speak up, and I do. But I can't morally assert my right to speak up while denying that right to other people.

It is immoral to hold other people to a standard that is beyond that of the law. The purpose of the law is to be the social agreement of what we can and cannot do. It just wouldn't be fair to throw out that agreement and require even more of people. If we wanted to stop people from reporting on jet movements, we should have passed a law about that. It's our fault and it's too late now, ex post facto laws are even more immoral.