Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for it address a matter of public concern. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684; Tang, 163 F.3d at 12. In Coyne v. City of Somerville, the court examined prior media coverage as one factor in the overall context in which the speech was made to help determine whether the speaker’s interest was merely personal. Coyne, 770 F.Supp. at 752. The court did not announce a rule that testimony regarding matters which have received extensive press coverage fall outside the realm of public concern. See id. It can hardly be argued that media coverage of the Kelleher incident transform lear that speech like Putnam’s report and testimony relating to the possible corruption of public officials addresses a matter of public concern. Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi, 362 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Guilloty Perez v. Pierluisi, 339 F.3d 43, 53 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that law enforcement agents speech which raised the possibility of corruption in a public agency is protected under the first amendment (B) recognizing criticisms of public officials is at core of speech protected by first amendment (C) holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation (D) holding that first amendment principles preclude recovery under state law for damages caused by speech or other protected conduct (E) holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern
Output (English): holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation