I am really tiring of these cute, but vague clauses.
I think discussing important topics like war, death, and censorship are needed, but then again maybe I'm not "nice" bring up uncomfortable issues especially when they don't make your hero/candidate look good.
See also "don't use for evil" clause in JSON library by Douglas Crockford and a special exemption for IBM: "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." [0].
It is a joke but a stupid one that harms adoption of the product. It's conceivable the author could decide say, eating meat isn't "nice" and sue an organization using it that packages meat products for consumption. A judge may find it unenforceable but having to potentially get tied up in a legal battle in the first place already makes it unpalatable to many organizations. See one of the replies here about a similarly juvenile clause where organizations got written permission to use a product "for evil". Not sure a few giggles is worth harming the adoption of technology many people have worked hard to deliver.
I had this issue before. I was complaining about a product on a forum and was a bit annoyed because it was expensive and did not work properly. I didn't call them names, but it was obvious in my tone that I was dissatisfied. Sadly, the moderators on that forum called it "trolling" and I got banned. Those moderators sadly also made money through the company I complained about since the forum is linked to the store.
I think discussing important topics like war, death, and censorship are needed, but then again maybe I'm not "nice" bring up uncomfortable issues especially when they don't make your hero/candidate look good.