> does that then mean your moral obligation to cooperate with law enforcement should still not kick in once you personally feel something wrong is happening
My point was that some of the definitions of "terrorism" and "pedophilia" used nowadays do not match something which I personally feel is wrong. More precisely, they match things that I personally would never want to do, but for which I do not consider it good that they be forbidden.
For instance, in some countries such as the UK, "partaking in child pornography" is interpreted as "watching drawings or computer-generated imagery of sexual acts among minors", a victimless crime, which I do not feel is morally wrong. While I am not myself interested in this, I believe people have the right to create, exchange and consume such material, and I find it immoral to limit their right to do this, or to help law enforcement doing so.
In other countries such as France, "terrorism" can be interpreted as "expressing support for acts such as the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, or posting djihadist propaganda online". Once again, I believe people have the right to express such opinions, and that it is morally wrong to prosecute them for it, or help law enforcement do so.
Further, in many situations, cooperating with law enforcement to track illegal or immoral acts means supporting mass surveillance measures which are both inefficient for these goals and extremely dangerous for individual freedoms. So, even in situations where the acts are unquestionably morally wrong, helping law enforcement is extended to a very broad meaning with which it is possible to disagree.
My point was that some of the definitions of "terrorism" and "pedophilia" used nowadays do not match something which I personally feel is wrong. More precisely, they match things that I personally would never want to do, but for which I do not consider it good that they be forbidden.
For instance, in some countries such as the UK, "partaking in child pornography" is interpreted as "watching drawings or computer-generated imagery of sexual acts among minors", a victimless crime, which I do not feel is morally wrong. While I am not myself interested in this, I believe people have the right to create, exchange and consume such material, and I find it immoral to limit their right to do this, or to help law enforcement doing so.
In other countries such as France, "terrorism" can be interpreted as "expressing support for acts such as the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, or posting djihadist propaganda online". Once again, I believe people have the right to express such opinions, and that it is morally wrong to prosecute them for it, or help law enforcement do so.
Further, in many situations, cooperating with law enforcement to track illegal or immoral acts means supporting mass surveillance measures which are both inefficient for these goals and extremely dangerous for individual freedoms. So, even in situations where the acts are unquestionably morally wrong, helping law enforcement is extended to a very broad meaning with which it is possible to disagree.