on listener input by the FCC regulations as well as the values represented by the First Amendment. Finally, the statements that allegedly inflicted emotional distress on Carpenter were not fairly a part of any public issue. Neither Carpenter's sex life nor her contact information was a matter of widespread public interest. Leykis's remarks generally constituted personal insults and jabs at Carpenter's alleged sexual proclivities; they were not the sort of speech that encourages "the free and robust debate of public issues." Protection of personal insults or offensive parodies targeted at public figures is necessary to ensure uninhibited public debate. But protection of insults and threats directed at private figures is not necessary to give adequate "breathing space" to the freedo ) (<HOLDING>); Rybachek v. Sutton, 761 P.2d 1013, 1014
holding that former state transportation department employee who brought allegations of departmental corruption to public attention was public figure 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 holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern holding that a state department of transportation employee was subject to patronage dismissal where his duties included serving as a liaison between the director of the department and the general public and other government officials including representing the department at meetings and conferences holding that tramway project developer who voluntarily sought public approval of project was public figure