By and large I agree that none of these things have any relevance to software development. (And Github shouldn't be forced to tolerate anything, not sure where that came from.) But a couple edge cases may be relevant:

> Hate speech and discrimination

Gender as an entry field. People have a variety of views on this one. I imagine that the prevailing view is going to call certain other views "hate speech" no matter how politely expressed. It is up to Github if they want to take this stance on it, but it is understandably going to get them called the "PC Police" should it ever come up.

> Sexually explicit content

I understand not bringing this into discussions for no reason. But what if someone is developing a Leisure Suit Larry clone? I think implementing a NSFW warning for viewing a project is perfectly reasonable by almost anybody's standards. But disallowing it entirely will preclude such projects from Github. But again, totally understandable if Github decides that it's not the place for such things.

Add:

> Active malware or exploits

Metasploit has been hosted at GitHub for few years and they never seemed to have a problem with that. Are they going to kick them now? Why should they care?

This in particular angers me because it's so broad IMO and antithetical to open source and security research. This smells like political pressure and censorship. Like the beginning of the end for GitHub...

Judging by his comment, it doesn't seem he's advocating for forcing a private entity (or at least this particular one) to do anything "against their will". Instead, he's moving his business elsewhere because of a policy he disagrees with -- a non-aggressive response of voting with one's wallet. Do you believe this equates to forcing Github to take actions against their will?

The problem is several of those are completely arbitrary. You define rules which seem nice at first and then get abused for political reasons.

I wouldn't want to be the person deciding where issues like this fits: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

The person who opened that issue to remove an Opal core developer because she didn't like his personal tweets was subsequently hired by Github.

That makes me VERY uncomfortable. To the point I don't even want to talk about it anymore, I'm just going to move away from GitHub.

Someone might link to one of my tweets from 2010 where "I want cloning to be legalized" (that's not me, just same username).

I missed that bit of news. Had I known that I would have canceled my account when they hired her/him/xir.

Most of those are crimes or torts, and should be dealt with by the legal system (the real one, where there are things like rules of evidence, a presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, etc.), not by some kangaroo court made up of the perpetually outraged.

> - Bullying and harassment

It's not the majority of the time, but I've see policies against 'bullying and harassment' used to silence anything but. That might be what is worrying OP.

No matter what the written policy says, they will have to tolerate threats of violence done in the name of political correctness. I remember the huge Twitter outrage from the well-connected social justice activists in the tech community driving policies like this when Twitter banned someone for threatening violence against a celebrity in the name of social justice, the anger that Twitter didn't understand this was important activism, forcing them to back down. It's politically impossible to act otherwise. Even Twitter probably only broke the unspoken rule by accident - a bunch of conservatives subsequently sent the same person threats, and most likely someone didn't bother checking everyone's political affiliation before banning.