When my parents came to Australia over 50 years ago, they came from a legacy of persecution where they were victimised for the culture and religion into which they were born. They came here because it was free, relatively tolerant and where people could do what they liked (pretty much) provided they didn’t impose their will on others or breach the law.
Over the years scores of cultures and religions have successfully migrated to Australia and have been absorbed into the Australian society without losing for a moment their ability to conduct their lives whichever way they liked provided it was within the law and within the social value system that we considered so valuable.
Muslims around the world are upset because a cartoonist breached one of their religious idioms. Fair enough, everyone can understand their upset. But to then argue that the cartoonist should not have breached that idiom assumes that he knows what that idiom is.
I for one, have no interest whatsoever in learning about Islam. Why should I? That Muslims live in Australia and are free to practice their religion without imposing their idioms on me or others is good enough for me (and something that I will argue strongly for).
But why should I have to know what does or doesn’t offend Muslims when I don’t know what does or doesn’t offend the 100 or so other religions that exist in Australia? What on earth makes Islam so special for non-Muslims? I know that if I abide by Australian law and do not impose my will, beliefs or idioms on others, then we will all live compatibly in one society. I don’t want to learn the intricacies of Islam and I’m sure that Muslims don’t want to learn the intricacies of my belief system.
This is a secular society that values personal freedoms of many kinds. One is freedom of speech (within the constraints of the laws of defamation), another is the freedom to practice one’s religion unfettered provided that it does not fetter others.
Quite frankly, if Muslims are unable to handle the sort of society that Australia is, then clearly this is a society that does not suit their religion and they should move to where their beliefs and their social environment are more compatible. Australia didn’t change to accommodate my parents and I’ll be dammed if I’m going to give up my freedoms lightly.

Lorraine wrote: Why do we have standards? How do we determine when it is appropriate, in the narrow instance of certain "spaces" online or in certain contexts, to violate the general case of the rule?

Lorraine,

Leaving aside ignorance of the rules by a list subscriber, I suspect that an individual will breach known rules when "possible benefits from the breach exceed value (risk) of the loss of membership". Where perceived value of loss is low, then potential for breach is higher. The value of "community" to a list subscriber is different for everyone and subjective - therefore any assumption that all subscribers view participation as membership in a community is probably overly-optimistic.

For reasons mentioned by others in earlier and other discussions, subscription denotes "participation, and opportunity to participate, in a range of conversations with largely anonymous people with shared interests in those conversations". I doubt whether such a description denotes a "community" in its traditional context. People subscribe to a list for a range of reasons, most of which revolve around themselves (interest, growth, education, networking, leverage, promotion, etc). Therefore the normative rules that govern the operation of strong communities are unlikely to have any force in this sort of environment and existing rules (standards) are unlikely to transpose personal motivations of a subscriber with "group goals" or "community best interest" ideals.

The reason we have standards, I suspect, is in order "to ensure orderly and uncompromised communication and participation by subscribers in a range of conversations which interest them".

The way I would increase the importance or power of the standards used by this group (and theoretically enhance a sense of community) would be to "lift the hurdle" or "pain of loss" of membership by:

• clarify a clear value proposition associated with membership of the list: i.e.. be unashamed about people's objectives to satisfy interest, growth, education, networking, leverage, promotion, objectives. Be clear about how the List aids such objectives.
• develop ways to capture the knowledge created by the List (e.g. hyperlink button on every e-mail that takes the reader to a library of topics on the Web that have occurred on the List which records full discussion on those topics) with access to this library available only to members of the List (community)
• investigate the emerging technology of voice and visual conferencing over the net as a possible additional channel for members (for use only by members)
• possibly consider ways of "branding" or "badging" list members that provides them with a "credential" or "title" that signifies their membership and differentiates them from non-members
• clearly establish the rules of the group (which I believe has been done)
• breach of rules leads to loss of membership and loss of access to the knowledge base, conferencing facilities and other privileges

Bottom line: make the pain of loss of membership exceed the possible gain from a breach