Did Charlie Kirk say that LBTQ people should be stoned
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the comprehensive analyses provided, Charlie Kirk did not say that LGBTQ people should be stoned. Multiple fact-checking sources confirm this claim is false [1] [2]. The confusion arose from a significant misrepresentation of Kirk's actual statements on social media, where his comments were taken out of context and distorted.
The incident appears to have originated when Kirk was responding to a YouTuber known as "Ms. Rachel" who had used selective biblical passages to commemorate Pride Month [3]. In his response, Kirk referenced Leviticus 20:13, but he was demonstrating how people cherry-pick biblical passages rather than advocating for violence against LGBTQ individuals [2] [4]. The analyses consistently show that Kirk was making a point about selective scriptural interpretation, not calling for harm against any group.
Stephen King, the renowned author, initially spread the false claim that Kirk had advocated for "stoning gays" but subsequently issued a public apology after recognizing his error [2] [4]. This apology serves as a significant acknowledgment that the original interpretation was incorrect and that Kirk's words had been mischaracterized.
Fact-checking organizations have rated the claim as definitively false, with sources explicitly stating that Kirk "did not directly advocate for stoning gay people to death" and that he said gay people are not "destructive" [1] [2]. The analyses reveal that this was a case of viral misinformation spreading rapidly across social media platforms before being corrected by proper fact-checking.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
While Kirk did not advocate for violence, the analyses provide important context about his actual positions on LGBTQ issues. Kirk holds traditional Christian conservative views and has taken polarizing stances on gay and transgender rights, including opposition to same-sex marriage and arguments against gender care for transgender people [5]. He has also denounced what he calls the "LGBTQ agenda" and has suggested that biblical passages serve as "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters" [6].
This broader context is crucial because it shows that while Kirk was misquoted regarding the specific "stoning" claim, he does maintain conservative positions on LGBTQ rights that some find controversial. The analyses suggest that his actual views, while not advocating violence, still represent significant opposition to LGBTQ equality and rights [5] [6].
The incident also highlights Kirk's role as a polarizing political figure through his organization Turning Point USA, which has been involved in various campus free speech controversies, including the Professor Watchlist project [7]. This background context helps explain why his statements might be particularly scrutinized and potentially misinterpreted by both supporters and critics.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself appears to be based on viral misinformation that spread across social media platforms. The analyses consistently show that this claim originated from a misrepresentation of Kirk's actual words and context [3]. The fact that even a prominent figure like Stephen King initially believed and spread this false information demonstrates how quickly and widely misinformation can propagate [4].
The misinformation appears to have been deliberately amplified by taking Kirk's biblical reference completely out of context and presenting it as a direct call for violence, when he was actually making a point about selective scriptural interpretation [2]. This represents a classic example of how political discourse can be distorted through decontextualized quotes and viral social media posts.
However, it's important to note that while the specific "stoning" claim is false, Kirk's actual documented positions on LGBTQ issues remain controversial and worthy of legitimate debate [5] [6]. The misinformation may have obscured more substantive discussions about his real policy positions and their implications for LGBTQ rights and equality.
The incident serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of fact-checking and the dangers of viral misinformation in political discourse, while also highlighting how legitimate criticism of public figures' actual positions can be undermined by false claims that are easily debunked.