[DiogenesLamp]

So the case really does nothing to support your position. The opinions of individuals are not the same as judicial rulings. And the court in this case did nothing to clarify the matter.

It does one thing. The fact that it was cited indicates that it was regarded as a viable argument by the Attorney, which implies that it was likely widespread. It is further bolstered by the quote in that Yale law book I mentioned above.

[Kleon]

The fact that it was cited indicates that it was regarded as a viable argument by the Attorney, which implies that it was likely widespread.

You seem desperate to make something out of this, but you're grasping at straws. Just because an individual makes as argument in court (in a dismissed case, no less) doesn't mean that it's a widespread belief. Would you apply the same logic to any argument made by a lawyer?