ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û

A deputy district attorney in Los Angeles alleged that his superiors retaliated against him for suggesting that a criminal prosecution should be dismissed because it was tainted by police misconduct. Both the county and the United States concede that this speech involved a matter of public concern but argue that it was nonetheless unprotected by the First Amendment because it was made in the course of the plaintiff's normal job responsibilities. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û's amicus brief challenges this cramped view of the First Amendment as both unprecedented and unwise.