but the point was, AFAICT, was it "sexual assault"?
there are people who read that and seem to conclude that he's defending that action, that it should be always permitted. I don't see that, and I'm pretty sure that's not what was meant, that it's a misunderstanding out of different ways our minds work.
what I see there is primarily a stance against the expansion of a technical-turned-into-propaganda term that, by expanding, turns acts that are lesser offenses into actual crimes.
the same phenomenon can be observed in the war against so-called piracy (a purely propaganda term, very much weaponized), or tropes that go about "such horrible crimes as arson, murder, and jaywalking". it's about avoiding the manipulative effect of such language twisting.
but common responses to such language issues focus on a wider context, rather than on the focused message. it's like, if he wrote "that's not genocide!" because something doesn't fit the definition of genocide, and instead of understanding that he meant "it's actually mass murder of a different kind", they take it as meaning that he thinks that kind of "not-quite-a-genocide but still horrible act is not reproachable"
in this case, the stolen kiss clearly crossed a line, it could be part of a larger pattern of sexual harassment, but it doesn't follow that every so-called "stolen kiss" should be criminalized, many happy couples start with a consensual "stolen kiss"