[MTT TL]

Maybe now you see why I ask these kinds of questions.

No wonder, with Wikipedia in the world. My bad, I posted it out of haste without reading the whole thing clearly first. As usual Wikipedia is wrong. The code cited was indeed correct however. Neither 797 nor 798 say a word about the rule not applying to civilians, merely that First Amendment Rights may not be violated as a basis for the detainment.

Otherwise the commander might make a rule calling for the arrest of anyone denigrating the president for example.

Here is the code:

(a) Misdemeanor violation of defense property security regulations
(1) Misdemeanor
Whoever willfully violates any defense property security
regulation shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.
(2) Defense property security regulation described
For purposes of paragraph (1), a defense property security
regulation is a property security regulation that, pursuant to
lawful authority -
(A) shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the
Secretary of Defense (or by a military commander designated by
the Secretary of Defense or by a military officer, or a
civilian officer or employee of the Department of Defense,
holding a senior Department of Defense director position
designated by the Secretary of Defense) for the protection or
security of Department of Defense property; or
(B) shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for the protection or security of NASA property.
(3) Property security regulation described
For purposes of paragraph (2), a property security regulation,
with respect to any property, is a regulation -
(A) relating to fire hazards, fire protection, lighting,
machinery, guard service, disrepair, disuse, or other
unsatisfactory conditions on such property, or the ingress
thereto or egress or removal of persons therefrom; or
(B) otherwise providing for safeguarding such property
against destruction, loss, or injury by accident or by enemy
action, sabotage, or other subversive actions.
(4) Definitions
In this subsection:
(A) Department of Defense property
The term "Department of Defense property" means covered
property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the
custody of the Department of Defense, any Department or agency
of which that Department consists, or any officer or employee
of that Department or agency.
(B) NASA property
The term "NASA property" means covered property subject to
the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration or any officer or
employee thereof.
(C) Covered property
The term "covered property" means aircraft, airports, airport
facilities, vessels, harbors, ports, piers, water-front
facilities, bases, forts, posts, laboratories, stations,
vehicles, equipment, explosives, or other property or places.
(D) Regulation as including order
The term "regulation" includes an order.
(b) Posting
Any regulation or order covered by subsection (a) of this section
shall be posted in conspicuous and appropriate places.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/23/I/797

Pretty clear and not a word about civilians, "Whoever" I think is pretty clear.

Also you did not look up the cited court case. Had you, you would have seen that the court limited the ruling to mere exercise of free speech. Regulations for the purpose of security solely have never been challenged successfully that I know of. In fact:

Held:

1. The regulations are not constitutionally invalid on their face. Since under the Constitution it is the basic function of a military installation like Fort Dix to train soldiers, not to provide a public forum, and since, as a necessary concomitant to this basic function, a commanding officer has the historically unquestioned power to exclude civilians from the area of his command, any notion that federal military installations, like municipal streets and parks, have traditionally served as a place for free public assembly and communication of thoughts by private citizens is false, and therefore respondents had no generalized constitutional right to make political speeches or distribute leaflets at Fort Dix. Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197, distinguished. Pp. 834-838.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0828_ZS.html

I swore off wikipedia a few years ago, they really are a three ring circus show masquerading as a reliable source. Again, my bad.