157, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). In order to conclude that speech addresses a matter of public concern, “th[e] court must be able to fairly characterize the expression as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Rahn v. Drake Center, Inc., 31 F.3d 407, 412 (6th Cir.1994). Here, Plaintiffs on-the-air comments regarding the meter reader scandal and the labor dispute, and his on-the-air comments concerning BPW’s alleged efforts to chill his criticisms, constituted protected conduct because they related to matters which had been discussed in the popular media and which concerned the activities of public officials operating a public television station. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct.
recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher holding that it is impermissible to dismiss a teacher for openly criticizing the board of education on its allocation of school funds between athletics and education and its methods of informing taxpayers about the need for additional revenue holding a board of education independently liable despite the intentional nature of the conduct of its employee a school principal holding agreement to pay for education expenses after high school not vague holding that a teachers first amendment rights were violated when the board of education dismissed him for sending a letter to newspaper criticizing a proposed tax increase