You cannot imagine the difficulties surrounding that issue as it concerns civilian bloggers, before you even get into the distinctions between military and civilian law. I don't myself buy into the argument that bloggers are de facto journalists, although it is possible that on occasion they may be performing or engaging in a process that is akin to journalism. This has primarily come up as concerns shield laws (do bloggers have the same protections afforded journalists -- to the extent they have them -- when it comes to the right to not reveal sources or give up documents, video tape, etc. to govt. officials.) Here's the problem with that one: if everyone is a potential "journalist," then how does a society enforce some kind of norm that says everyone has an obligation to testify when called upon to do so?

Well, if military members are journalists, what does that do to their obligations to not publish information, footage, photographs, etc? Wouldn't their first amendment protections trump any other obligations?

Don't think so.

Bloggers, it seems to me, are press critics involved in a larger community conversation.

For all sorts of reasons, the larger military benefited from having its members' voices being heard, even when those voices were critical, in part because those voices were sometimes critical, because it was precisely the fact that those voices were sometimes critical that gave them credibility.