Here. The headline suggests there will be praise and criticism, but the criticism - if it can be called that - is scant. It's mostly 'he fed into the stereotypes, even though clearly most deserve what he would have given them.' Personally I'd like to see him go after a group of veterans or athletes at such a protest.
The piece spends most of its time more or less condoning what he did in so many words. It even says he had a constitutional right to harangue, berate, browbeat and even threaten the lone, older woman. It never seems to mention the young teenage girls he threatened to 'dox'. It doesn't mention him 'doxing' the old woman either.
So mostly ignore key parts of the story, excuse him on almost every count, and only say it's bad because he feeds into stereotypes about your own side. And as can be expected, it accomplishes this by assuming the moral high ground and conveniently ignoring facts that might hurt the cause.
That's defense number one. I've seen a few by now try to downplay his actions, and Mark Shea's 'don't browbeat that old woman or you'll help Trump' response is already becoming a thing of legend across Catholic social media.
But this is the first attempt to more or less defend Sims and condone most of what he did (while ignoring other points). Again, the point isn't universal outrage now, it's how will it be in another ten years. Or in this case, another ten days.