Sure, I'm not saying it was immoral for them to do it, just that I don't want to put any websites I control under such an AUP, because it's far too broad and subjective.

I agree this case is more than "personal sensibilities"; I was referring to their AUP in general when I said that, which has much more leeway for banning things. For example, what constitutes "promoting illegal drugs"--- is that only sites that are actually selling drugs, or will they pull the plug on a site advocating drug decriminalization, if the site becomes controversial? Would they pull the plug on xenu.net if it were hosted there? What's the threshhold for creating "a risk to a person's safety or health"? Are extreme-sports sites problematic? Does "assist others in defeating technical copyright protections" include discussions of emulators, or sites that host academic research on DRM schemes? The whole thing just gives me no confidence in hosting anything there.