Employment, Not Censorship, Stopped Kevin Sites' Warblog

Rebecca Blood has this well-reasoned commentary on CNN's demand that its employee, Kevin Sites, stop his independent warblog:

Freedom of the press . . is freedom from interference and censorship by the government--not a freedom guaranteed to reporters from interference by the news agencies for which they work . . . .
Kevin is in Iraq as a member of the press corps at the behest of his employer, CNN. They are paying his expenses, and they are the reason he has been provided with press credentials allowing him access to the people and places he is reporting on. . . .
. . . Does Kevin's contract contain a non-compete clause? If so, his weblog is in direct violation of his contract. Does his contract specify that any and all work pertaining to his field, performed by Kevin while in the employ of CNN, is the intellectual property of CNN? (Don't laugh--I know of two people in two different professions who were asked to sign such a contract as a condition of employment.) If so, Kevin's warblog is in direct violation of his contract. At any time has Kevin been unavailable to CNN because he was working on his weblog? If so, this is a work performance issue, and CNN has every right to insist that he focus on his job instead of his personal site. . . .
There are issues here, but from the information available, censorship and freedom of the press are not among them.