Probably has to do with the sincerity factor. In Natalie Portman's case, she signed a petition. She didn't create the petirion or write an article attached to it. All she did was sign a petition.

In her case, because there's nothing more to go on and because of her history (best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and she's not known to more or less fair minded), it's easier and natural to give her the benefit of the doubt. There's no additional reason to doubt her sincerity, in other words.

With David Permutter, that's not the same. He wrote that article, in which he was highly exposing himself. He also cannot fall back on a stellar reputation he has built for himself over years. His apology rings shallow and contrite as a result.

Now, please keep in mind, I'm speculating a good deal here but this is an opinion based on what I've seen in the comments. So, it's not pire conjecture either, it's my best educated guess.

Also, keep in mind I'm neither agreeing with or disagreeing with the discourse. I see valid points on both sides. As I didn't see the thing go down and I can't investigate for myself since it's been removed, I don't have a means to form an opinion for myself anymore. Any one I made, would all be based on unverifiable heresay.

My point in bringing it up, is that I don't think the discrepancy is straight hypocrisy and double standard, broad strokes. I'm also pretty sure, that looking individually, you'd see just that some of the time. Like it or not, we are all judged all the time based on more than the moment in question. We all have a 'credibility rating' that rises and falls based on many factors over time. Some of that rating is earned, some of it is levied for or against us by perceptions.

I think that's what you're seeing here, more so than hypocrisy.