initial allegations of hazing, is well suited to provide information to local citizens and parents regarding this matter of public concern. Were we to accept defendants’ proposition that Cioffi’s speech is not a matter of public concern simply because it personally and directly affects him “would mean that only those persons with the least amount of firsthand knowledge about the subject matter could utter speech without fear of government reprisal.” Johnson, 342 F.3d at 114. As painful and embarrassing as it may be to defendants, the public has a pointed interest in obtaining information not only about the fact of the hazing, but also the possible administrative failures that allowed it to occur. Cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Of course we have no opinion with respect to
holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern 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 recognizing the preliminary issue in a first amendment challenge is whether the speech at issue is protected or unprotected holding that law enforcement agents speech which raised the possibility of corruption in a public agency is protected under the first amendment recognizing criticisms of public officials is at core of speech protected by first amendment