Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Did Charlie Kirk say stoning was appropriate for gays
1. Summary of the results
The analyses provided do not support the claim that Charlie Kirk said stoning was appropriate for gays [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. In fact, multiple sources indicate that Stephen King falsely claimed Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays to death and later apologized for the mistake [1] [3]. The analyses do mention Charlie Kirk's polarizing views on gay and transgender rights, including his opposition to same-sex marriage and gender care for transgender people [2] [6]. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Charlie Kirk ever advocated for stoning as a punishment for gays [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
A key piece of missing context is the distinction between Charlie Kirk's actual views on LGBTQ+ rights and the false claim made by Stephen King [1] [3]. Additionally, the analyses highlight the complexity of Charlie Kirk's legacy, with some sources condemning his anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and others discussing his polarizing stance on gay and transgender rights [5] [2]. Alternative viewpoints on Charlie Kirk's legacy are also presented, including his opposition to same-sex marriage and gender care for transgender people [2] [6], as well as his hard-right views, including criticism of Islam [6]. The role of guns in violence is also mentioned as a concern [5].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement appears to be misinformed or misleading, as there is no evidence to support the claim that Charlie Kirk said stoning was appropriate for gays [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This misinformation may have originated from Stephen King's false claim, which was later apologized for [1] [3]. The spread of this misinformation may have been facilitated by biases against Charlie Kirk or his views, and may have been used to further polarize opinions on LGBTQ+ rights [5]. Those who benefit from this framing may include individuals or groups seeking to discredit Charlie Kirk or his legacy, or to amplify their own views on LGBTQ+ rights [5].