When ever someone claims to be offended, I'm always reminded of Stephen Fry's excellent response - http://imgur.com/EX5v4
So fucking what, indeed.
Were these guys in a private, joking conversation harassing or simply overheard by accident?
Think fast ... your job could depend on it.
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.
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.
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).