overcome the hefty burden of disproving the validity of the regulation in their analysis of the Turner factors, we Affirm. 1 . Perhaps the strongest evidence that inmates had used the sites to induce financial contributions was one female inmate’s admission that she had acquired two pen-pal fiancés, each of whom — unbeknownst to the other— sent substantial sums of money to her on the belief that they would marry following her release. 2 . See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (upholding a Missouri prison regulation that prohibited intra-prison correspondence); Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529 (7th Cir.2010) (upholding a Wisconsin regulation that prohibited prisoners from playing the game "Dungeons and Dragons”). 3 . See Singer, 593 F.3d at 536
holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted holding that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity where it was not objectively reasonable for them to believe that failing to develop ieps which contained the required information did not violate the plaintiffs statutory rights holding that although playing the game dungeons and dragons had not incited gang behavior in the past since it was rational to believe that continuing to allow inmates to play the game could lead to such behavior in the future banning it did not violate the first amendment holding imputation was not proper when the record did not show that such expenses had been incurred in the past