Punditry Meets Participatory Law

I talked about "participatory law" at Gnomedex. In discussing Implications of the Power Law for Grokster 'Punditry', Ernie Miller talks about how we'll see a living, breathing example of a species of this when the Grokster decision comes out tomorrow:

What is going to happen on Monday is that there is going to be dialog and discussion. It's not going to be a bunch of specialists in isolated cells writing about what they think is important. There is going to be a lot of back and forth. Statements will be put forth, challenged, refined, and expanded. That sort of thing doesn't happen too much in the old media world. Despite these specialists' expertise, there remain gaps in their knowledge. Some writers (specialists and non-specialists) may only provide slight additions, but they will contribute nonetheless, and even specialists will be better off for it. Process is important. Open dialog is far superior in generating knowledge.

Put another way, the ability to triangulate is going to be tremendous and powerful. I for one wish I'd always had the opportunity to take in crucial new legal developments in this way. But, why cry over spilled brain cells? Enjoy what we've got! And rather than trying to point you to all the blogs I'm going to be checking out tomorrow (though I'll join Ernie in a big YeeHaw! that two three of them will be the Picker MobBlog, and The SCOTUSblog's Grokster metablog, and William Patry), I'll point you instead to these searches in Technorati, PubSub, and Feedster. You could spend the whole day just hitting refresh on those and come away very well informed.