(Trigger warning for anyone reading this comment: this comment discusses non-consensual sexual situations)

> Nope, but the sphere of influence of the conference organizer does.

Obviously, the conference organizer cannot determine whether someone can go to a particular bar at a particular time. However, the conference organizer can decide who can go to the conference. And that can be based on any judgment they want that they think is best for the conference, even based on what they have done outside of the conference. Remember, they are choosing who speaks at the conference based on things that happen outside of the conference; they are choosing based on whether the person has done good work in the past, or has something interesting to say. It's not like everything they do in organizing the conference is based solely on what happens in the conference.

It wouldn't be good if they banned people on just a personal whim. But having a policy about acceptable behavior, and applying that policy whether the behavior happens within the walls of the conference venue or not, is not unreasonable.

> I suppose so would paying a hooker and taking her back to your room or buying any number of drugs would fall under the convention organizers watchful eye as well? What about cheating on your significant other?

This is a different situation altogether. It doesn't make sense to decide one case on the basis of another, much more extreme, hypothetical case, that is completely unrelated. What happens at your hotel room is not the business of the conference; but if you have an "unofficial post-conference after party" that you announce on the conference notice board, and sexually harass someone there, then that does fall under the purview of the conference organizer. It's based on the association with the conference, the fact that the people were there together and interacting because of the conference, that makes it related to the conference.

>>we should probably try to do something
>This phrase never, ever prefaces the right course of action.

And that is just not true. If we decided to just give up any time an injustice happened, we would still be living in the dark ages. Sorry, there are plenty of times when it makes sense to make something our problem, to help defend the oppressed, defend minorities, prevent people from being dicks to each other and ruining a perfectly good conference.

Sure, it's possible to go from "we should try to do something" to a solution that is worse than the malady. I've seen that happen plenty, especially when things as heavy handed as the law are involved. But we're not asking someone to be locked up on just the say-so of one person. We are asking that some kind of policy be put into place on how to deal with sexual harassment at conferences and the possibly unofficial events associated with them.

> Sounds like a personal problem. One that should be handled personally, like, oh I don't know, choosing not to attend.

So you are saying that you would rather have people who sexually harass other people at the conference, than their victims? That because someone is the victim of sexual harassment and feels unsafe, that they should stop going to conferences? This is unacceptable.

Let me discuss something more personal, rather than talking about theoretical situations. I have been in a social group which admitted a man as a member who made many people feel uncomfortable. This was a social group, and it's not like people were offended by mere sexual jokes or people hitting on each other. He went further than that, saying things that creeped people out, not respecting people's personal space, not taking "no" for an answer when he went over the line. Several people brought up these problems, but no one did anything, in part because we had no formal policy for how to deal with this; once someone was a member of this group, there was nothing we could do.

Eventually, he wound up raping another member of the group. He went beyond mere creepiness to actual rape.

That is the kind of thing that women have to worry about when this sort of thing happens. It's not just something that makes them feel a little uncomfortable. If someone has demonstrated repeatedly that they don't respect boundaries and don't take "no" for an answer, they are at a much higher risk of going further. That's not so say that they will; you can't arrest someone for just creeping someone else out. But you can decide that that is not acceptable behavior for someone at your conference, or in your social group, or at your bar, and do something about it.

> You are now attempting to wield unrelated things as weapons against someone.

No one is trying to "wield weapons" at anyone else. They are not trying to punish. They are trying to keep the space safe for other people.

> In your example, and in the event in the blog post, the group that should be 'doing something' about it is the person impacted by it, not the convention organizers.

Look, conference organizers make all kinds of decisions to make their conference informative, useful, and welcoming. They are not obligated to allow anyone who applies to be a presenter. They are not obligated to allow anyone in the world to be an attendee. If someone is making other attendees seriously uncomfortable, then they are harming the conference, and it is well within the rights of the organizers to deny them access to the conference.

> Why stop at the conference, why not petition the airline not to sell this person a ticket? Or the hotel not to rent him a room? Or the rental car company not to loan him a car?

You are again extending the point beyond what anyone is arguing. You are building up a strawman, and shooting it down, not responding to what is actually being discussed.

The point of a conference it to get people together to discuss things. It cannot be very successful if people are afraid to come to it because someone else there makes them uncomfortable. I am not affected by someone I don't like renting a car from the same company that I rent it from. I am affected by them being at the same conference, especially if they seek me out even after I have told them to stop.

As for the plane example, again, it doesn't affect me if we are on different flights. But if the person sitting next to me started inappropriately hitting on me and failing to take "no" for an answer, I would take bring it to the attention of the flight crew. I would expect that they would ask the person to stop, and if they continued, would bar them from flying on the airline again, or (depending on how physical it got), land the plane early and have them arrested. No, I don't expect an airline to ban someone without a restraining order, but I would expect them to accommodate a request to change seats if I had been seated next to someone who had a history of harassing me.

And anyhow, that's neither here nor there. The point of an airline is to transport passengers. The point of a conference is to foster a community; for people to meet and share ideas. They are different purposes, and while in both cases people should feel like they have a recourse against sexual harassment, in the case of the conference, given that it is a much smaller, more intimate community, there is a much greater need to ensure that everyone feels safe and you are not simply allowing one person to scare others away.