Never the less, I think we will come to a time when companies will have to come up with something beside "zero tolerance". It's not a forgone conclusion, but I think we will come to a more nuanced approach as more people get caught up in these scandals.
Certainly the likes of Weinstein and Spacey have very little redeemability (However, we see Polanski had some abroad if not at home) but there is another class of people who do act "ungentlemanly/unladily" whatever, but not all the way to sexual harassment. For example, if we take Dustin Hoffman at his word, yes, it's uncalled for, but is it beyond the pale, given the times it took place?
I think companies and society have always had a clear consensus on these issues; the recent events have merely been pointing out that 'ignore and suppress' isn't a very good response.
https://www.facebook.com/Pinegroveband/posts/101557485055597...
Musician cancels his band's tour because of non-public accusation of "sexual coercion" in a relationship. What were his other options when someone presented this claim to him, presumably with some probability of the claim going public?
One reason we have such a guideline is that it takes time for the community reaction to actually become clear. The downvote situation usually rights itself, as it has—quite decisively—above. Only a single downvote affected that comment to begin with.
My point isn't that this case isn't bad behavior, it's that we will get closer to a grey area or undefined area and will have to have a more nuanced response to those (mis)behaviors.