Perhaps it'd be better to change the link to a second-hand source in these cases, instead of the usual approach of the mods switching the link out to be the original source. I'll take blogspam over a paywall, and the WSJ link will still be available in the blog for those that really want more details.

I suspect that many here actually subscribe to WSJ, the NY Times, the Economist, and other common paywalled newspapers and magazines that get submitted here.

I don't see why they should be forbidden from discussing that material here just because some of us might have trouble seeing it. Enough people apparently CAN read them for them to get lots of comments, lots of up votes, and get a lot of people "liking" them on Feedly (this story seems to be the most liked non-Apple submission today on the main RSS feed).

Also, in most of these discussions of paywalled stories, other sources pick up on the news fairly quickly. There are dozens within the last hour reporting on this particular one. None have as much detail as the WSJ article, but many give enough information to allow one to reasonably follow the discussion here and participate meaningfully.