First of all, it's great that -- unlike past sexualized-keynote incidents -- there was a prompt apology from both the organizers and the speaker. We're making progress!
I'd like to talk a little about this argument, though:
> And yet we have a small minority of people who evidently take offence at images and words that would be perfectly acceptable on Australia broadcast TV
.. because I think it's problematic in at least two places. The only justification for introducing the phrase "a small minority" can be to argue that the majority should always get to do what they want, but this completely misses the *point* of adopting an anti-harassment policy: to protect groups less powerful than the majority from experiencing extremely-negative reactions to something that the majority find somewhat-positive and therefore want to do.
The second problem is the comparison to Australian broadcast TV. As far as I'm concerned, a conference talk should be held to the same standards as a workplace professional interaction -- for many attendees, that's simply what it *is*. Many people, but most consistently women, are very clear about not wanting their workplace interactions to be sexualized; it's a reasonable request even if you don't personally understand why it's so important to the people making it. Life gives people different experiences, so we should assume that someone telling us that our behavior is hurting them is probably not making it up.
So, I'd like to argue that if you think you might get fired or criticized for giving a sexualized presentation at work, you should certainly not be giving one at a conference. The broadcast TV standards of the country the conference happens to be in aren't relevant; broadcast TV is something that people are generally free to disconnect from without repercussion, unlike a packed keynote, and it usually isn't watched together in a room with hundreds of people who you're going to spend the next few days interacting with.