[GK3]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the problem is.

If somebody has a security clearance can they not be in the same room as a copy of the NYT? If somebody in the room is talking about a story they read about Ukraine in the NYT do they have to cover their ears? I think obviously not. They just shouldn't pipe in and say- "all the stuff in that story is true, and furthermore.....".

If somebody posts a link to a story regarding the documents, it seems simple for anybody worried about this issue to just not discuss whatever part of the article or link they are concerned about. Most of the article I just posted was about Bakhmut with interviews with soldiers there, and some assessments by the intelligence community that were in the leaked documents (that were previously referenced in open source reports before the leaks, we had heard before for instance about western concerns about how long Bakhmut could hold out, probably from national security staffers discussing ostensibly classified information with a reporter). Seems silly to not be able to post or discuss such an article.

I interpreted BC's initial comment to mean that we shouldn't post links to the actual leaked documents. I subsequently have posted several articles that referenced things that were discussed in those leaked documents and this is the first time that has been called out as some sort of problem.

You ask a very good question.  We know that DoD says that the fact the documents were compromised does not declassify them or the information in the document.  It is really the information that is the source of the classification.  So now you have the appropriate clearance but not the need to know.  Your friend  meets you for breakfast and brings the NYT which reproduces one of the documents on the front page. Your friend then shows you the article and asks what you think.  
So should you even read the article?  You don't have the need to know and the information has been declared still classified. Your friend has no clearances of any type and by default is not allowed access to the information.  But he has the information since it is now in the public domain.  So what is the proper thing for you to do?  DoD has told you the information remains classified, so since you do not have Need to Know are you prohibited from talking about it, reading the article etc. I would really like BC to clarify the issue.

[GK3]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the problem is.

If somebody has a security clearance can they not be in the same room as a copy of the NYT? If somebody in the room is talking about a story they read about Ukraine in the NYT do they have to cover their ears? I think obviously not. They just shouldn't pipe in and say- "all the stuff in that story is true, and furthermore.....".

If somebody posts a link to a story regarding the documents, it seems simple for anybody worried about this issue to just not discuss whatever part of the article or link they are concerned about. Most of the article I just posted was about Bakhmut with interviews with soldiers there, and some assessments by the intelligence community that were in the leaked documents (that were previously referenced in open source reports before the leaks, we had heard before for instance about western concerns about how long Bakhmut could hold out, probably from national security staffers discussing ostensibly classified information with a reporter). Seems silly to not be able to post or discuss such an article.

I interpreted BC's initial comment to mean that we shouldn't post links to the actual leaked documents. I subsequently have posted several articles that referenced things that were discussed in those leaked documents and this is the first time that has been called out as some sort of problem.

You ask a very good question.  We know that DoD says that the fact the documents were compromised does not declassify them or the information in the document.  It is really the information that is the source of the classification.  So now you have the appropriate clearance but not the need to know.  Your friend  meets you for breakfast and brings the NYT which reproduces one of the documents on the front page. Your friend then shows you the article and asks what you think.  
So should you even read the article?  You don't have the need to know and the information has been declared still classified. Your friend has no clearances of any type and by default is not allowed access to the information.  But he has the information since it is now in the public domain.  So what is the proper thing for you to do?  DoD has told you the information remains classified, so since you do not have Need to Know are you prohibited from talking about it, reading the article etc. I would really like BC to clarify the issue.