Most responses were zingers or did not show a basic understanding for what he said. They are noise, and noise is not worth defending.
Surely you see the problem with that line of argument.
His piece was hardly insightful. In fact, he did not show a basic understanding of the issues he was pontificating on and the piece was mere noise, not worth defending by anyone.
Once you start trying to parse out who's right, you're missing the point of free speech aren't you?