Actually none of the standard means (ie. not stealing/hacking logins , but using archives, caches & reading services) are illegal in my jurisdiction, so I am perfectly entitled to do just that.
Your approach fits an old fashioned way of reading (ie. reading primarily a small group of publications). Personally if I were to do that I'd rather buy paper. A huge part of the point of the web to me is to be able to read articles from a multiplicity of individual sources, not be corralled within a few. This affordance doesn't suit site subscriptions, which are fundamentally anti-web.
WSJ and other publications clearly welcome readers bypassing their paywall when they land via Facebook and other referrers. Are you saying it's OK to give people a hard time for reading the content for free when they enter via Facebook, but not via a different channel? It seems a fine point to make a big deal out of.
I realise I muddled my words in the previous comment, but I think you get the point.
WSJ themselves are welcoming of non-paying readers from certain channels.
So it seems a bit mean-spirited to hound people and liken them to criminals for doing what the publisher welcomes under only marginally different circumstances.