That may or may not be true, but it's not really relevant to this. Adria wasn't harassed, she over heard something, and took offence to it. That's her problem.
When ever someone claims to be offended, I'm always reminded of Stephen Fry's excellent response - http://imgur.com/EX5v4
If you were in the same situation as Adria, would you have wanted that person fired? I'm going to hope the answer is no, and I hope Adria would have answered the same way.
In that context, could you assume that the repercussions of posting that picture would be so high? I certainly would never have expected that.
Now, if I'm sitting in the audience talking to a friend, would I expect anyone to be listening or offended by me making an off-colored joke with that friend? I at least would not. Does that mean no one could have been offended? Clearly not – and this is why guidelines exist, to help inform well meaning people of the consequences of their actions, and create an environment that isn't hostile where people are most able to do great things together.
The code of conduct helps guide and inform behavior in situations where people may not understand the effect of their actions. I see this addition in this light – in the conference environment public shaming has negative consequences that likely exceed intention, and as in this case are contrary to the goals of inclusiveness (there's very little positive spin you can take on how these events have unfolded).
They were in the middle of an auditorium, which is the opposite of private. Regardless of whether it constitutes harassment, the conference has a specific policy against it. Everyone involved said he was wrong and she was right, including they guy, who apologized in person and later in public on HN. She didn't ask for him to be fired.
"They were in the middle of an auditorium, which is the opposite of private."
I do not agree with you at all. If I am at a conference with a friend and we are sitting in an auditorium and he and are I chatting about something between us, regardless of whether you can hear it or not, IS a private conversation. Private here does NOT mean nobody can hear you. It means there are very specific people involved in the conversation.
If the guy, who apologized in person on HN, had said he wasn't wrong and that it was a joke between two friends he would have been lynched even harder than he was now.
I guess it hinges also on the definition of "private".
Is it always the offended party's prerogative to claim offense if, "in passing", they hear something that upsets them but which was (1) not intended for them to hear and (2) not directed at them?
That appears to be the case here - the jokes were not directed at the (now-fired herself) Ms Reynolds.
Public shaming shows only one perspective. Furthermore this perspective can potentially be fabricated. Public shaming is akin to vigilante justice, and we as a society decided that was a bad way of "justice" for very good reasons.
She complained to the PyCon staff, who quickly mediated a discussion between her and the guys she complained about. They apologized and everyone was OK. No career-related consequences necessary.
Her blog post said that she was composing a text to the organizers, but that was after she tweeted the photo and her location (asking for others to 'shut the guys up'). Seems like PyCon organizers probably picked up on the tweets before the text message (if it was sent) did anything.
One should not take law into his own hands. If one is harassed, s/he should complain to right authority (police, lawyer, Pycon organizers, etc.). The one who was publicly-shamed can file a defamation suit and you'll be in trouble.
I disagree with what you said. Please tell me where you work so that I may go create a PR nightmare for your employer that is best solved by firing you.
