They've got their own frickin' Sedition Act in there. Seriously, "You cannot say anything disparaging about Sony" (paraphrased)! It's in there! Are all corps doing this? Cause like, I was just banned this morning from the CM Storm support forums for demanding they do something about the tracking problems with their Sentinel mouse, and pointing out how their advertisement for the product was misleading, which was completely valid in the way I presented it, not just "U lyed about ur mows, fool!"
If we can't say anything bad about the company on their own site, how else are they gonna find out we have a problem with them? They've already paid off all media outlets to say GOOD things about them.

Hmmm...can you quote the relevant part word-by-word? I can (sort of) understand it if you're not allowed to 'troll' Sony in Playstation Home, for example.

Someone's in a conspiracy theory mood today.

5.) USER GENERATED CONTENT
Some of the Sites have tools that allow you to communicate with other users and to create, post, upload, share and distribute various forms of content for and in connection with the Sites, including pictures, photographs, videos and other information or materials (collectively, “User Generated Content”). Keep in mind that User Generated Content does not include your blog and message board postings. If you post your insights, ideas, opinions and comments on our blog site or message boards, you cannot prevent SCEA or other members of the community from using them, and you give your consent to SCEA and anyone else to use your posts in any manner.
A. YOUR USE OF USER GENERATED CONTENT
It’s great that users on our Sites can upload or share content with each other, but we do not authorize you to upload or share on our Sites certain items and content. Do not create, transfer, share, send, submit, post or upload any User Generated Content that:
[Omitting irrelevant clauses, text in parentheses added by me]
2. Contains fraudulent statements or misrepresentations that could damage us or any third party; (Totally understandable)
3. Contains any statements or materials that disparage, ridicule or scorn us or any third party; (Not so understandable; What are you, five years old? "This is MY treehouse, you can't say anything about me!")
[4.- 8. are irrelevant to the topic]
Shut up, michael, there's no "theory" about it. It happened. End of story. I was banned for "No reason specified", and "Date ban will be lifted: Never".

Actually, they explicitly state that this does not apply to blog and forum posts, right? You can say what you want there.

That's American law for you. Companies have to assert their absolute dominance over you in order to be able to provide any kind of service at all. Otherwise you just sue the shit out of them. So it's being dominated or nothing. You guys just won't have it any other way.

I seriously don't see what your problem is. They even clearly state you are not stopped from saying what you want in blogs or forums. This is for user generated content....
Also, what is wrong with the sentinel mouse? I have it and I haven't noticed anything with it yet.
And yeah, going to an official support forum and acting like a jerk should make you bannable.
Why shouldn't any company be allowed to stop you from badmouthing them in their own forum or something? Perhaps you should change your attitude before they do. You wouldn't go to someones house and badmouth them and expect them to let you continue...

That wording is bog standard for pretty much everywhere. Along with the "we have the right to delete content/ban users for any reason at our sole discretion".
Even GOG carries such a statement: GOG reserves the right to refuse registration of or to cancel any user account at any time for any reason.

I think its the culture of sexual repression, it lets the kinky BDSM stuff like this permeate into the business world

Problem is they can run afoul of the parody and satire laws which explicitly allow you to make fun of them (draw scorn)

It's like Catholic school for grown ups.

That's the major problem and it's not just with parody and satire laws. EULAs often go so far against consumer rights that they render themselves null and void in the process. However, how much control a company has through it's EULA is not really something you should want to put to the test. It's a minefield for all concerned.

Most of the user agreements these days might as well just read "All your base are belong to us." Of course, how things work in practice has very little relation to what the various user agreements say. Basically if a company has the capability to do something and they want to do it then they will regardless of whether or not user agreements allow them to, with the flipside being that unless a company has the ability to enforce aspects of the user agreements (e.g. through stopping service) then, unless you do something egregious enough to make it worth actually taking you to court, absolutely nothing is going to happen if you violate the user agreement. Basically don't even bother with what the user agreements say; look at what people and companies you do business with are capable of doing, look at how they have historically behaved, and base your interactions with them on those two things.

If you were banned it was because you were a figurative dog, went onto their lawn and pissed on the flowers then wonder why you get hit with the hose by the owner of that lawn.

To you folks in America, that is the case.
However in other parts of the world, such as Canada it isn't, granted it doesn't really matter here because the other party is in America. (at least according to their location under their forum name) But for comparison's sake.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms subsection b:
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ....freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"
As limited by section 1:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
As opposed to the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The difference being that one says people have to be allowed to be able to do something, the other one says no laws will be passed against it.

I don't mean to offend, but the freedom of speech given in the United States appears to be broader than that given in Canada.
Section 1 is full of ambiguous terms, such as "reasonable limits" and "demonstrably justified". This allows for interpretation of the clause. Whereas the United States prevents any law preventing the freedom of speech. There isn't much wiggle room there.
Reasonable limits could (and I imagine does, although I'm by no means an expert at Canadian law) apply to forums owned by people independent of the government. Surely you could remove a letter taped to your door without infringing on someone's right to free speech.
If you look it up, the United States, whether you see it as being correct or incorrect, has laxer restrictions on free speech. Hate speech is banned in Canada, while it's allowed in the United States (as long as it isn't intended to start a riot or defame someone).