Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): missing. Even McGreal found the purportedly missing reports in the Liquor Commission files. Chief Wood and Lt. Snooks also point out that McGreal filed Judicial Inquiry Board complaint about Judge Sterba without fully investigating the circumstances. McGreal’s letter highlighted the differences between the sentence that Sean Taylor actually received and the one that Lt. Snooks related to McGreal. McGreal then drew the inference that these differences were in response to McGreal’s initial inquiries into the matter, instead of a simple mistake on the part of Lt. Snooks. Chief Wood and Lt. Snooks argue that McGreal’s speech was motivated by personal interests in making these statements, and therefore the First Amendment does not protect the speech. See e.g. Kokkinis, 185 F.3d at 844-45 (<HOLDING>). For example, Chief Wood and Lt. Snooks submit 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation (B) holding that even though speech was motivated by personal grievances it would still be protected conduct if it dealt with public concerns (C) holding that speech addressing a private interest within a letter containing matters of public interest was protected and noting that we have emphasized that speech of public importance is only transformed into a matter of private concern when it is motivated solely by the speakers personal interests quotations omitted (D) holding that public speech motivated by personal displeasure with policies was not covered by the first amendment (E) recognizing criticisms of public officials is at core of speech protected by first amendment
Output (English): holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation