I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.

http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggre...

However, Amanda Blum paints a pattern of behavior that just isn't there when you really read into those stories. THAT is what the "teardown" is about. It's not saying that Adria did nothing wrong.

"In the blog post, Adria even admitted that she made a mistake in mentioning it on her podcast prior to talking with the organizers, and apologized for doing so."

In that case, she did something wrong and apologized for it, and there wasn't a public shit-storm. In this case, before she had an opportunity to really apologize, she got attacked by the Internet. So, AFAICT, there are two publically known instances of her doing something wrong, and doing something wrong in the exact same way: "going to the public before confronting someone privately". How many times do you need before it's a pattern?

Edit: clarification

Suppose the talk referenced something about how to beat your wife. Do you think it would have been so terrible to handle it that way?

Sure, maybe it's better to talk to the organizers together. But come on, surely you can understand why one might handle it that way -- especially since the talks were still being voted on it.

If this was wrong, it was only a very mild transgression. It does not form a pattern.

Being offended DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS, it is just you being offended, get over it.

Voting is an indication that some subgroup of people have a specific view, either positive or negative, towards a talk. The selection committee can use that information to guide their selection. They may even go back to the person and point out that while the talk content is very appropriate, it's structured in such a way that incidental aspects (eg, a joke about "Hans Reiser killing women attendees" at a talk at linux.conf.au) will detract from the talk and blunt the actual content.

Or they may decide that the content is important enough to override the vote.

You are right, by the way. In the US context, being offended goes not give anyone rights. What gives people rights is the law. The law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, the laws says that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex, the law says that frequent and unwanted dirty jokes at the workplace can be a form of sexual harassment, and the law says that if someone doesn't like dirty jokes in the workplace then the first step is to file a complaint. And the law gives wide latitude to what the complaint can be, including making a complaint in public, and says that making a complaint gives extra protections against retaliation.

So no, being offended does not give people rights. Civil rights laws give people rights.

As to your examples, the law does not say that references to evolution, gay rights, etc. are in violation of the laws against discrimination in the workplace. However, if the only Young Earth Creationist in the company was always singled out as the person to write the "earth geology" transcripts, and there was no special business reason why that Y.E.C. should be singled out, then that Y.E.C may file a complaint for discrimination based on religious beliefs.

Because singling out someone in the workplace based on their religious belief is against the law.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the mildness of the transgression and pattern-forming.