The worst:

- "Threats of violence"

"If you think that someone else might interpret the content you post as a threat, or as promoting violence or terrorism, stop."

Arbitrary, subjective policing by anybody who wants to pitch in that they don't like you or what you're saying, or even who they think you are because of external stuff that has never been on github, no matter how non-threatening you've been. This has happened, and guidelines like this legitimize and invite the continuation of such behavior.

- "Hate speech and discrimination"

"Just realize that talking about these or other sensitive topics can make others feel unwelcome, or perhaps even unsafe, if approached in an aggressive or insulting manner."

Again, this is undefined and the existence of inflicting "hate" is left to the sole interpretation of 3rd parties (ie, not you and not github). As respectful and non-insulting as anybody can get, can and does still invite others to place their own meaning into otherwise innocuous words. This has happened, and guidelines like this legitimize and invite the continuation of such behavior.

- "Bullying and harassment"

"In general, if your actions are unwanted and you continue to engage in them, there's a good chance you are headed into bullying or harassment territory."

Again, solely left up to random 3rd parties to determine what's "unwanted" from you personally. If you're a maintainer and your development actions are repeatedly unwanted by some users, can they claim you're bullying them according to the guidelines? If there are 2-way disputes, and both are "unwanted" by the other, what does this guideline even mean? Any legitimate argument between two firm sides can be claimed to be bullying, if either side decides to bring that in and try to escalate to silence the other. This has happened, and guidelines like this legitimize and invite the continuation of such behavior. This is not good to have for a site which should host legitimate technical discourse.

The others:

- "Sexually explicit content"

"We'll know it when we see it."

This is worded unclearly, and appeal to authority doesn't fix that. Any application of it will certainly bring arguments over the artistic quality of the content, and technical development of what inevitable stuff is going to be coming through VR. Also, does purely textual content constitute "sexually explicit" or "pornography"? It's vague, but at least it's more about the content itself, as opposed to somebody's subjective reception of the content, as in the case of the other problematic issues. Also it leaves the actual classification of the content up to the hosting site, not to the whims of random passers-by.

- "Impersonation" - has this been a problem? Since it relates to github's data and technical presentation, it makes sense. In any case, it is intentionally false communication which makes it defensible to remove from a site often used to hold canonical data. It focuses on the content instead of on its reception by 3rd parties.

- "Doxxing and invasion of privacy" - straightforward. should be handled through legal systems, but I don't think those are in place yet. Plus, it focuses on the content instead of on its reception by 3rd parties.

- "Active malware or exploits" - testable, applicable specifically to github's content and role as a software repository. Focuses on the content instead of on its reception by 3rd parties.

By the way, your whole rhetorical "You think people should be allowed to ..." is a prejudiced view of others, making inappropriate and uninformed judgment, placing words in others' mouths (could be construed as impersonating what I might say if one only read your reply?), associating me with potentially illegal behaviors, is not acceptable discourse, and is unwanted. Should you be banned?*

(* = this entire paragraph is hypothetical, in case it's not clear)