It's still wrong, and should be against the law, no matter how many times removed the action is. Just because people don't like or trust the government does not make it okay to go around publishing documents in the name of free speech.
The crime is the breaching of an agreement between a cleared government worker and the government. Someone without an agreement with the government is under no obligation to keep anything secret.
I disagree with your analogy, because the First Amendment doesn't cover buying beer for a minor. And the First Amendment isn't just some law--it's a cornerstone for our relationship with our government.
Is it "ok" to publish the secret documents? Of course not.
But allowing the government to punish third parties for publishing the documents is even less "OK"! The US government is heavily restricted because history has shown that a government will abuse the hell out of its citizens.
And sometimes this means the US government's hands are tied, and people that do "bad" things are set free. But the Founding Fathers agreed that the greater good was served in this manner... and I concur.
It sucks that the secrets got out. We need to take steps so that it won't happen again--such as not allowing people to walk out of secure areas with freakin' CD-RWs!
And finally, I have a practical argument against publisher restriction. Once the secret has been stolen, it WILL get out, and it will get out BIG. How many mirrors of WikiLeaks are there? 1000? How many of those aren't under our jurisdiction? How many are in countries unfriendly to the US? Are we going to go to war over someone's web server? No. So even if you grant the government the power to punish the publishers, you still won't keep the secrets secret.
If you want all this abusable power given to the government, I'm going to want some appreciable effect in return... and there is none in this case, so... no thanks.
I'll agree with you that it's not "ok". But that's as far as I go. It's also not "ok" for a guy who committed an unwitnessed murder to not say so on the witness stand. But I'll back his right to remain silent every time because I know in the long run the greater good is served.
Edit: furthermore, I'd like you to consider the case when our own government's illegal action is exposed. Do you really think it should be illegal to reveal the illegal actions of our government?
Both examples involve two steps; the beer example is illegal in the final step, the document example is illegal in the first step.
Not liking or trusting the government is one of the main reasons free speech exists and is codified in the Constitution.
You have a valid point. I disagree, however.
One has to weight the situation. A government operating in the darkness of secrecy will not lead to anything good.
It started with simply stopping lawsuits against "renditions" by citing national security concerns (i.e. the government can basically do what it wants and then just draw the "national security" card) and goes on with knee-jerk, infantile reaction against WikiLeaks.
