>By accepting Our Contracts and using Our services, You agree to abide to Our code of ethics which consists, in particular, of protecting and respecting minors, human dignity, public order and good moral standards, not infringing on the rights of third parties (private life, image, honor and reputation, trademarks, designs and models, copyrights, etc.) or the security of persons, property, the government, or the good working order of public institutions, and to help in the fight against abusive and/or deviant uses of the Internet (spamming, phishing, hacking, cracking, or attempts at hacking or cracking), or any other infraction as cited in the Penal Code.
I don't see anything about terminating your account "in its sole discretion", though. I personally use Gandi because they have a ton of TLDs and they've been fast and reliable, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they stuck one of these clauses in there.
Which penal code?
The owner and publisher of this website is Gandi SAS, a simplified joint-stock company registered under French law with a capital of 37,000 Euros.
Registered with the Paris RCS – French Trade Registry - under number 423 093 459.
Intracommunal VAT number FR81423093459
63-65 boulevard Massena, Paris (75013), France
Gandi US Inc.
124 Lakefront Drive
Hunt Valley, MD 21030
Why does this matter? If your a US site, and you piss off someone in France then the pissed off individual has a target local to them (Gandi) who they can send legal threats to based on French laws. Or really a mixture of US and French laws.
If you would like to look up more on the subject when dealing with international law conflicts, consider reviewing US-EU safe harbor.
These are a few instances of that, NameCheap doesn't budge on their customers rights despite it being in the agreement.
Disclaimer: I know the owner and think he's one of the most respectable people in the domain industry based on my interactions with him over almost a decade now.
You missed my point: either the standard is the law, or it's "we'll let you know when we have a problem with what you're doing".
Regardless, I think that any registrar would have to have some "we reserve the right to shut down your domains" clause given the number of botnets and other uncool stuff on the net which use lots of domains (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Payload_propagation for example)
Registries and ICANN do require registrars to include certain clauses in their contracts with end-users/registrants, but I'm not aware of any that include vague morality clauses. This document - http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm - is an enumeration of the terms and conditions that ICANN and the registries require us (Hover/Tucows) to include in our contract with our customers/registrants. These requirements aren't specific to us.
I was in the room in the late '90s when most of these clauses were negotiated and then again in the early '00's when the new registries came online (Afilias, Neulevel, etc.) and most of the new registries just simply absorbed the existing T&C's in order to smooth out the approval process associated with them launching their new TLDs. They've grown and evolved in the last ten years and aren't as uniform as they once were, but generally, you can still see the pattern in there.
Generally, most of the power a registrar requires to prevent the bad guys from doing bad things comes from national laws and not all these extra clauses. We (Hover/Tucows) find that all these extra conditions just make it harder for our customers to do business with us and so we've left out as much as we can and rely mostly on national laws to get what we need done.
know 'em when you see 'em, huh?
(FYI: I'm the GM for Hover...)
As with any registrar / host operating in the US, they will be subject to court orders.
We all saw what happened to goatse.
We could also establish a viable alternative DNS root zone and nameservers that people could use if their country censors the internet. See also: Jon Postel rolling in grave.
Lost revenue for either company would very quickly exceed the value of the registrar.
If the consumer doesn't, they can walk.
I'd love to find a "no bullshit" registrar that was outside the USA. In a jurisdiction where censorship is actually forbidden.
Iceland could be a good candidate. 
I'm much more worried about a domain being stolen by the US government than I am by hackers. And that's not because I'm doing anything the US government shouldn't like... just that, with all these massive seizures, they're going to get domains by mistake. Then try and get your domain back... ugh.
Also of worry is the nexus created by the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, etc.) which manage the address space and associated policy.
ARIN manages the IP address space for US, Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands and could easily be hobbled by over-reaching legislation from any of those national interests - with possibly a much deeper and broader impact than anything that could be inflicted by similar legislation affecting the domain name system.
The problem here is that the terms can be read in a very one-sided way (leaving aside the questions of adherence contract interpretation) and therefore all the power in the interaction is held by the registrar.
But if you don't like reading about them, don't. I don't see how you're being forced into these threads. In fact, feel free to vote them down. But don't pollute them.