[gizmo686]

Because it is not obvious that a gag order would preclude one from removing a warrent canarie.

There has been no test cases on the subject, and there are few instances of the court upholding compelled speech. Further, the precedents that we do have for compelled speech have been based on the compelled speach being truthful (as well as a legitimate government interest in compelling the speach).

This means that, irrespective of the law of the gag orders, one could make a very strong consitutional arguement for being allowed to remove the canary, and would have strong precedent.