No, because if it were moral, it would be the right thing to do. And your reasons are irrelevant to the morality.
We have a problem today where too many people base morality on feelings, such that if it feels good it is good and if it feels bad it is bad.
This results in people demanding censorship and insane accommodations because of X person or group's feelings. This is made worse by authoritarian liberals physically assaulting people in the name of fighting hate (saying they are love, opponents are hate, thus justifying violence on all who disagree). Dr. Jordan Peterson is right that this morality based on emotions combined with equating words with violence is fascism, since it lets you say "he expressed an opinion I don't like, he attacked me, let's go kill him". There is precedence for this in Islam equating speech to an attack on the ideology that must be met with murder.
That someone can say they are doing it for the right/moral reason of X oppressed group does not make the action right. That someone can issue death threats or destroy property for someone sharing facts contrary to their "narrative" is a reflection of their own narcissism and viciousness.
Their feelings do not dictate morality, and those who deny others their rights for the sake of mollifying the perpetually outraged are committing a great wrong even if they think it is for a good reason.
We should stand by our individual rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom from assault by others, right to property not to be torched and torn up no matter how right X group thinks their reasons are ... because letting them deny others their basic rights to life, liberty and property, letting them hurt others who disagree is doing the wrong thing for what may seem like the right reason.