Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="arscott" data-source="post: 5071945" data-attributes="member: 17969">There's no legal requirement that the testimony of prison security specialists must be countered by the testimony of other prison security specialists.  The fact that inmates counter Muraski's testimony should be enough to merit a full trial.  Deciding whose testimony is worth more is the job of a judge or jury that has actually seen the witnesses testify on the stand.  Until then, there's a question of fact, and summary judgment is inappropriate.The judge's argument that the affidavits of the prisoners don't adequately address the hypothetical nature of Muraski's concerts strikes me as tenuous at best--the cynic in me recognizes it as the sort of argument one comes up with when one has already made their decision and is searching for some justification.At the very least, this unlikely hypothetical should run afoul of the exaggerated response prohibition, but the judge doesn't even address whether the D&D ban is an exaggerated response given the complete absence of prior D&D related problems and the shakiness of the connection muraski posits.  Instead, the judge takes a D&D ban as a given and then determines that this particular ban isn't an exaggerated method of prohibiting D&D.  (Though in this area, I'm willing to accept that the fault lies in a weak argument by Singer's lawyer instead of weak reasoning by the judge).</blockquote>