Fact check: Did Charlie kirk really say that gay people should be stoned to death?

1. Summary of the results

The claim that Charlie Kirk said gay people should be stoned to death is not supported by the analyses provided ^{[1] [2] [3]}. In fact, multiple sources indicate that Charlie Kirk did not make such a statement, and instead, was quoting the Bible to demonstrate how others selectively choose quotations ^[1]. Additionally, notable figures such as Alastair Campbell and Stephen King have retracted their statements and apologized for falsely claiming that Charlie Kirk advocated for stoning gay people to death ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Other sources do not mention Charlie Kirk saying that gay people should be stoned to death, instead focusing on his polarizing views, including his opposition to same-sex marriage and gender care for transgender people ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Key context missing from the original statement includes the fact that Charlie Kirk was quoting the Bible to demonstrate how others selectively choose quotations ^[1]. Alternative viewpoints, such as those from conservative evangelical leaders who hail Charlie Kirk as a martyr, are also not considered in the original statement ^[6]. Furthermore, the original statement does not account for the retractions and apologies made by notable figures such as Alastair Campbell and Stephen King, who falsely claimed that Charlie Kirk advocated for stoning gay people to death ^{[2] [3] [4]}. It is also important to consider the broader context of Charlie Kirk's views on gay and transgender rights, as discussed in various sources ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be an example of misinformation, as it claims that Charlie Kirk said gay people should be stoned to death, which is not supported by the analyses provided ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This misinformation may have been perpetuated by notable figures such as Alastair Campbell and Stephen King, who later retracted their statements and apologized ^{[2] [3] [4]}. The original statement may also reflect a bias against Charlie Kirk, as it presents a false and damaging claim about his views without considering the context and retractions made by other sources ^{[7] [5] [8] [6] [4]}. Those who benefit from this framing are likely individuals or groups who oppose Charlie Kirk's views and seek to discredit him, while those who are harmed are Charlie Kirk's supporters and individuals who value accurate information ^{[1] [2] [3]}.