Framing it as a question about morality makes it more difficult for me to think about. Lots of pedants will say that morality != legality, and while I dislike pedantry, in this case it is a good distinction.

In the case of something like a death threat or doxxing info, I suspect that the responsibility ultimately lies with SN -- as SN operates the website.

But if we are asking what a territory owner should do about slimy posts that aren't so obviously criminal that SN has to deal with it, posts that are annoying or scammy -- I'd hope that territory owners feel a desire to downzap such things so that stackers won't mute their territory.

The last 9 months though have demonstrated pretty clearly that a market alone doesn't prevent big spenders from promoting posts that nobody wants to see.

As to the morality of a territory owner potentially receiving sats from scammy posts: it is clearly the case that the scammers would spend MUCH less boosting if they weren't being downzapped. I am not mathematician enough to work this out, but is it possible that territory owners actually benefit more from downzapping such posts? Certainly it is the downzapping that kicks off the huge rewards pools we have seen.