A study used a communication perspective to examine the extent to which the civilian/military First Amendment dichotomy is warranted and to add to First Amendment theory the subject of the First Amendment rights of servicemembers. The study was limited to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition, and association. It did not include freedoms of religion or privacy, the rights of gay servicemembers, or the right not to register for the draft. Traditional legal research methods were used to uncover the legal rationales that support the civilian/military dichotomy. All the military speech cases from all levels of the military appeals courts and the federal civilian courts were examined. Also examined were the congressional debate over the adoption of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and three unlitigated military speech controversies from the post-Vietnam period. Results indicated that civilian and military courts have used the following four rationales which suggest that military speech must be curtailed if it threatens: (1) the political neutrality of the armed forces; (2) servicemembers' loyalty and morale; (3) strict order, discipline, and obedience in the military; and (4) diplomatic relations. Findings support the conclusion that military society is viewed by the courts as substantially different from civilian society. A communications model is suggested in which military communications is a discrete, linear process that can be stopped and the purpose of which is usually persuasive. (One hundred forty-six footnotes and two diagrams are attached.) (RS)