In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the Court of Military Appeals to explain the unique need of the military. The latter court stated in United States v. Priest:
In the armed forces some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.19
This endorsement of the Priest decision clearly demonstrates the Supreme Court's application of the balancing test, weighing the peculiar needs of the armed forces as but one factor to determine the extent of military free speech rights.
