at 17, 39. Regarding Putnam’s testimony before the State Ethics Commission, Vasapolli and Bisignani argue that Putnam was not engaged in constitutionally protected speech because there had already been extensive media reports on the Kelleher incident at the time of Putnam’s testimony. Defs.’ Mem. at 4. Therefore, Putnam “was not bringing to light any information that had not already been made public.” Id. (citing Coyne v. City of Somerville, 770 F.Supp. 740, 752 (D.Mass.1991) (Cohen, M. J.) (noting that the plaintiff could not be considered a citizen going public for the first time when there had already been wide scale press coverage of a matter)). There is no legal requirement, however, that an individual’s speech bring to light new, previously non-public information in st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); O’Connor, 994 F.2d at 915. (quoting Connick,
holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to ask whether prospective jurors would place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants holding corrections officers are not law enforcement officers under  41412 holding that law enforcement officers first amendment interest is entitled to even greater weight where officers  reports exposed possible government corruption holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports