Then those employers should be punished via the same public shaming mechanism. If this is the new way to do things, fine, but it works both ways.

Never heard of PlayHeaven before. Now it is on my black list. I will make sure to remember it. Unless I read a public apology with an offer to hire him back, I will make sure to go out of my way to let everyone know about them.

PyCon -- making off color jokes is reason to take statements and escort people out in front of everyone, but posting insulting face pictures on attendees (sponsors none the less) is ok? Nope. It is not 'OK'. There should be a public apology. Guess which one makes PyCon a hostile environment? Imagine someone saying "I refuse to attend PyCon if the person who posted a picture of naked woman in one of the slides comes too". Everyone understands that, sympathy flows on twitter etc. Now what if I say I refuse to attend if Adria attends. I don't feel safe and don't feel welcome when my face could easily end up twitter with an insult underneath. Isn't that the same issue?

It doesn't work both ways, because the employer is not subject to the same external pressures that the employee is. The employer answers to the general public, the employee answers to one easily-scared manager.

It's related, but not equivalent.

I meant it is similar in how public shaming and humiliation is accepted as a valid way to deal with such situations.

Initially it was probably done more to companies. It is probably the most efficient way to get a large corporation to listen to a customer -- fear of public shaming.

Adria applied it a personal level and in the context of a tech conference. That was the "new" twist here.

From an external point of view a scared manager, a small pyramid of scared managers, or a single owner doesn't matter. I see it as a corporate response. That is what makes manager's job hard -- making such decisions. He made a bad decision, the company or higher ups haven't responded yet, or apologized.

Exactly. Think of yourself as an employer - either you retain the employee and get branded as a "Women unfriendly company", or as a company that harbors "Male chauvenists". Or you just fire the relevant folks and save face.

Both are tough choices - but its obvious which one is the most (to the employer).

Hopefully with more incidents like this, employers branded as "overreacting, bending over backwards PC twats" will start receiving similar unfavorable treatment as the aforementioned labelings.

Not all employers will over-react and fire someone. The employer could have chosen to keep him and say the standard, "We regret. . .We do not condone. . .We have taken appropriate action. . .The specific action taken is a private personnel matter." Yes, it's BS to some degree, but in this case it would have been valid. And yes, some people might have still called for his head, but I suspect that number would have been relatively small.