This puts a different light on this post
I saw the post about @WR and couldn't believe my eyes. I wouldn't put up any such post, as it could be viewed as aiding and abetting someone to disobey a direct order. Personally, I think that such an order to silence a person from keeping what amounts to a public diary is unlawful, as it serves no purpose other than to restrict that person's first-amendment guaranteed right, which, as we all know, the constitution ensures the gummint can't touch, (infringe) and an Army officer, being a de facto government representative, issuing said order would be a perfect example of gummint incursion onto that right.In my mind it sorta calls into question the veracity of @Walter Reed. And the competence of said officer if he can't keep his blog secure.
I understand the need for OPSEC both at home and abroad, and of course there is a need for discretion, where operational and even strategic information is relayed, but that isn't the case here. Simple embarrassment of the chain of command is (probably) the issue.
That being said, as an Army officer, I am not the one who would make this ruling of legality of the order itself, that duty belongs to a JAG judge. I can decide for myself whether or not to follow an order, and face said consequences. However, I cannot to assist someone else in breaking an order (unless it is blatantly unlawful/illegal/immoral) especially without knowing the exact limits of said order.
Regardless, I must state plainly that I didn't post the piece about @WR. It wasn't until this morning that I even visited http://walterreed.blogspot.com. Like I have previously stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of this page from day -1 this site has most likely been hacked.