Each change in communication has bought about change in society. It began with the invention of language over 40,000 years ago when humans began settling into villages, it changed again with the invention of writing precipitating cities, to print and broadcast, that led to states and nations respectively.

The arrival of the web and the ability for individual people to communicate directly with each other, regardless of geography or indeed language, will precipitate a change in our society we, at the dawn of this new age, cannot begin to comprehend.

And it is to this point, the unknown and unknowable future of our society that I have been considering these last few days following the judgment of Judge Harvey to allow the naming of those charged with the murder of John Hapeta in traditional media but not the internet.

Some initial thoughts

Before we begin looking at this decision I want to explain my thoughts about suitable strategies to ensure success in this new environment.

First and foremost it is important to keep in mind that no one knows how things will turn out, and to be honest if I did, I would already be retired as a social media billionaire.

So what is a successful strategy?

Planning any actions in this new unknown environment comes down to using a three stage process:

• Take action
  We have to start somewhere with social media: I am sure when the first village settled together they wondered WTF they were doing. To learn anything about how we are all going to interact with each other using social media we have to begin to experiment.
• Don’t bet the farm
  Most of our actions in this space will fail because we really are feeling our way blind in this unknowable place, so don’t commit to an action which you can’t walk away from. Start small and replicate success.
• Learn lessons
  Most importantly of all is: review the actions taken and use metrics to gauge failure and understand why, because this way you will uncover success.

The problem the judiciary face

I have a deep and profound respect for the job of the judiciary, and more particularly how judges go about the difficult task of assigning responsibility and quantifying loss and punishment.

To facilitate this difficult job the judiciary has built up a complex set of rules controlling the information juries should hear when deciding each case. This process has evolved over hundreds of years to ensure only relevant and reliable information is considered by individuals on a jury in reaching decisions in criminal cases.

Unfortunately the internet generally and social media specifically changes all the rules, because today we all have the ability to communicate facts, rumors and conjecture onto a platform that is accessible instantly and eternally to potential future jurors.

This sidesteps the judiciaries important control of information into a courtroom, but because the internet sidesteps ALL control of information it leaves judges with a real issue.

So how does the judiciary cope with this?

The simple fact is: I have no idea.

But thinking about it, I would advocate a three stage approach:

• Take action
• Don’t bet the farm
• Learn lessons

And I believe now this is exactly what Judge Harvey did, and his actions are entirely appropriate and admirable.

My initial reaction was this approach wouldn’t work, and I still believe that, but at least this is a start.

Congratulations Judge Harvey – FWIW you have my support.