Court Opinion

ID: 9456181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:44:27.95503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:52.589035
License: Public Domain

KILEY, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring) .
I concur in the result reached in Judge Swygert’s opinion, but I prefer to base my concurrence on the basis that the Commander’s order barring plaintiff from the Fort was too drastic and violated the principle of proportionality. Where the Commander’s purpose of preserving good order and discipline could be fulfilled by measures short of infringing First Amendment freedoms, the infringing measure should not be sustained. Here I think that a warning or a technical suspension of plaintiff’s privilege of access would probably have sufficed. See Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 602, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967).
If the word “subterfuge” used on page 8 of the majority opinion implies that Colonel Nichols’ reason for the order was not his expressed fear, but rather his dislike of plaintiff’s anti-Vietnam *752war views, I think that the record does not support the implication.
KERNER, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur in the opinion of the majority. However, I agree with Judge Kiley that a warning by the Commander would have been sufficient to prevent Miss Kiiskila from disrupting base activities.