But, it lets people avoid criticism making it a popular standpoint.
It doesn't assume that. It doesn't matter whether the text does or does not have inherent meaning. The essay's point is that the reader's judgement is just as valid as the writer's.
As an extreme example, the phrase "colorless green ideas sleep furiously"[1] can be interpreted by the reader as having meaning even though Noam Chomsky says it's a meaningless sentence. The author is not the final and not the only interpretation that's valid.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_fu...
Now, that does not mean the Author is infallible. But, discounting the authors intend is like ignoring a books sequels or even the second half of the text. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCeFbK-WEVE
In the end by discounting the author you are left with the lowest form of criticism, how did that make me feel. Which is not actually about the text, just the person writing.
Getting back to your phrase. Someone can assume line noise has meaning, but they are simply mistaken.
Ignoring the author's culture includes their language. Consider handing just that text to an alien along side a few thousand similar, but randomly generated texts.
I'm just saying the main context I'm seeing here is goalpost moving.
The written word is a medium of exchange not an independent artifact. If you read a recipe with "Add 3 cups of water." the author's intent is to tell you how to make something edible. So, it means poor 3 cups of water not take three 1 cup containers with water and add the containers and water to the mixture.
You can find examples like this in any lengthy text. But, death of the author is not about exploring that kind of grammatical wordplay it's about shielding the critic from reality. Thus, intent is both considered and ignored when it helps them.
But it's not. The question isn't "what does this mean to YOU", but "what did this mean to the author".
If I pick words randomly I can say with authority that there is no meaning in the words, and for all your understandings you can't change that the words were picked blindly, and thus without meaning.
> The author is not the final and not the only interpretation that's valid.
As to the author's intent, yes it is. Whatever intent there was is set down with the ink on paper. You come later, as a reader, so your interpretation is at most an addendum and not part of the original.
> [...] can be interpreted by the reader as having meaning even though Noam Chomsky says it's a meaningless sentence.
Sure. But an interpretation isn't a change in the nature of the actual thing. Even if I interpret an elephant as a butterfly it won't fly away.
This entire literary "discipline" (cough) is based on refusing to use an accurate description of the practice. Everyone agrees that a text can invoke various things - even unintended things - in various readers. That doesn't mean you're finding something inherent in the text but in the reader.