There are specific legal limits to how far a company's license claims can hold. To take an absurd example, if a company got you to sign a license saying they could burn down your house if you ever said anything negative about their product, and you did, and they did, the mere fact that you agreed to a license giving them that permission doesn't mean that they have it.
But, as far as I know, there is not actually any limit to what a company's license can claim you are beholden to. They may know damn well, from past experience, that they have no legal right to remotely disable your software if you publish any benchmarks (at least if the DMCA gets repealed, they won't have that legal right ;) -- but the point is that you won't know it because you don't have a team of lawyers telling you what parts of the license are real legal restrictions and which are hot air.
I don't think anyone needs me to spell out that this creates a "chilling effect" on the free exercise of consumer rights, just as laws like the CDA create a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights; if you can't be sure without a court battle what you're really entitled to say and do, are you truly free to say it and do it?
The combination of the incongruous license terms -- and their general incoherence -- puts me strongly in mind of a certain religious cult that everyone on the Net knows about, or should. They're well-known for ahem, to put it mildly, asserting rights they have no right to? If you know who I mean, ask yourself whether that doesn't sound like them, with the insistence that you cannot use the software to "[in?]fringe ... the religious opinion of a third party".
For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.