Fact check: Charlie Kirk said to stone gays

1. Summary of the results

The claim that Charlie Kirk said to stone gays is not supported by any of the provided analyses ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. In fact, multiple sources explicitly state that there is no mention of Charlie Kirk saying to stone gays ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. Some sources discuss Charlie Kirk's views on gay and transgender rights, including his opposition to same-sex marriage and gender care for transgender people ^[3], but these do not support the claim of advocating for stoning gays. Key findings include the lack of evidence for the claim and the presence of discussions on Charlie Kirk's polarizing stance on LGBTQ+ issues ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

• The original statement lacks context about Charlie Kirk's actual statements and views on LGBTQ+ issues, which are discussed in several analyses ^{[3] [4]}.
• Alternative viewpoints are presented, such as the harm caused by Charlie Kirk's anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric ^[4] and the need for gun regulation ^[4], but these do not support the claim of advocating for stoning gays.
• Additional context is provided by sources mentioning the investigation into Charlie Kirk's death and the reactions of various organizations, including the ACLU ^[1] and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups ^[4].
• The fact that Stephen King made a false claim about Charlie Kirk advocating for stoning gays and later apologized ^[5] suggests that the claim may be entirely unfounded.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to be misinformation as it is not supported by any of the provided analyses ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. This misinformation could be biased towards portraying Charlie Kirk in a particularly negative light, potentially to further polarize discussions around LGBTQ+ issues ^[4]. The lack of evidence for the claim and the presence of discussions on Charlie Kirk's actual views on LGBTQ+ issues suggest that the original statement may be an example of misinformation or disinformation ^{[3] [5]}. Those who benefit from this framing are likely those who oppose Charlie Kirk's views and wish to emphasize the harm caused by his rhetoric ^[4], while those who are harmed include Charlie Kirk's supporters and individuals who value accurate information ^{[1] [3] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.