Internet content is largely considered ephemeral, or at least disposable. No matter the force of words: it is the medium that largely preserves the value of the content - should there be any value.

Even the most apropos arrangement of zeros and ones will be hard-pressed to stand the test of time as well as print media such as the first edition of The Catcher in the Rye.

Which is ironic, considering that the last time there was a "next big thing" in print media was circa 1450. But with the internet, "next big things" abound. Wireless, mobility, blogging, community. So far, only the internet itself has stood the test of time (a whopping 30 years or so).

The important thing is not to let the medium drive the content. It may be difficult to "blog for the ages," but one should nevertheless strive to maintain some degree of perspective and thoroughness. For a dose of reactionary banter, listen to AM talk radio.

Not all content is evergreen, and often the subject matter dates itself (try blogging about "push technology" or "lotus notes"). Blogging therefore presents legal writers with a challenge - one I hope they that they are capable of meeting.

And for those that regard legal prose as nothing more than mechanical boilerplate, consider the following from the introduction to Ephraim London's 1960 two-volume set, The World of Law:

Disraeli said that he was depressed by the law but exalted by literature. If he meant that law and literature are disparates, the statement is without meaning, for the term "literature" is merely a judgment of the quality of writing. Court proceedings, testimony, arguments, pleas and judgments, and the discussion of legal theories...may be read as literature if the expression and thought are of a high order.