The Misuses and Misrepresentations of Charlie Kirk
In the shock and commotion that followed the assassination of American right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk, edited video clips, deepfakes, and partisan hot takes have tried to define his legacy. Many in the MAGA movement overzealously sought to canonize Kirk as a national hero alongside the most celebrated figures in American history. Others have used his murder as a pretext for authoritarian government crackdowns on speech. Meanwhile, some of Kirk’s most ardent critics have attempted to represent him as a monster, insinuating and sometimes outright saying that he either deserved his fate or that society is better off. But when we examine these claims side-by-side with what Kirk actually said, we see not only a far more nuanced picture, but a man whose views cannot be honored by attacking free expression.
LGBT Issues
Claim: “Charlie Kirk wanted gay people stoned.”
Some critics, using out-of-context video clips, have argued that Kirk called for the punishment of LGBT people, that he wanted the state in people’s bedrooms, and that he tried to push LGBT people out of his coalition.
What actually happened: When we watch the full exchange in question, we see that Kirk did not, in fact, call for penalties or violence against LGBT people. In response to a Christian woman invoking “love your neighbor” with regard to LGBT issues, Kirk cited a verse from Leviticus about stoning men who have sex with other men in order to expose the problem with selective proof-texting. His intent was clearly to show that scriptural cherry-picking cannot settle policy questions, not to endorse the punishment or call for the state to stone gay or bi men.
To his credit, Stephen King apologized for saying Kirk “advocated stoning gays.”
Source: Twitter.
While Kirk was a socially and culturally conservative person, his view on homosexuality as a policy issue was, “Honestly, I don’t care what two consenting adults do.” We can see in this clip that Kirk took criticism from the political right for these views.
In an interaction with a college student who introduced himself as a gay conservative, Kirk said, “First of all, welcome to the conservative movement.” He argued that he didn’t think people should be defined by what they do in the bedroom and that LGBT conservatives belong in the coalition.
In conversation with the gay right-wing pundit Dave Rubin, Kirk went even further:
“I have no problem with, you know, gay marriage, whatever. I believe marriage is one man, one woman. That's my own personal position, right? But I'm never going to tell [the] government to have someone live a life. I think it's cool you're married, I think it's great, and you should have all the same tax benefits, adopt children, it's great.”
Kirk also pushed back against anti-LGBT right-wingers.
Charlie Kirk: I'm going to ask a very respectful question, as respectfully as I can. What does what [LGBT people] do in their private life concern you so much that you have to go up in front of a crowd and —
Questioner: It is against God, that is why. Are you a Christian or not?
Charlie Kirk: Do we live in a theocracy, yes or no?
Questioner: You said you're a Christian.
Charlie Kirk: […] you can have that belief. But if you say there's something inherently wrong with communicating or associating [with LGBT people] just because they make different personal decisions than you, then you, sir, are not a conservative.
Race
Claim: “Charlie Kirk opposed the Civil Rights Act.”
This claim has been repeated by figures ranging from British morning talk shows to the floor of the US Congress.
What he actually believed: Kirk praised the ban on racial discrimination but took issue with some of the ways in which the law has been applied in recent years.
We can see his views articulated in the following exchange:
Questioner: You said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. What did you mean by that?
Charlie Kirk: Yeah, so there are parts of the Civil Rights Act that were great, but the way it's now being implemented to force men in female bathrooms, to push forward the trans agenda, the intent of the Civil Rights Act is way beyond what it was originally authored for.
Questioner: But the intent specifically, originally, was to —
Charlie Kirk: The intent and the law are two different things. The intent was noble, which was to say that no American can be not allowed into a place of business based on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. Totally in agreement with that. That's not what the law only did. It created a massive anti-racist DEI army that then gave us affirmative action. For example, recently Merrick Garland sued using the Civil Rights Act saying that we cannot have voter ID in certain states because it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Basically what the Civil Rights Act did is that it went beyond disparate impact and then went to disparate effect. So in a sense [wherever] black Americans are not doing as well as white Americans in a certain category, you can now use the Civil Rights Act and say that's a violation of the Civil Rights Act, even though there might be other contributing factors. Does that make sense?
Questioner: Yeah.
One may disagree vehemently with any of the opinions Kirk expressed here, but it’s clear in context that saying he “opposed the Civil Rights Act” is simply untrue.
Claim: “Charlie Kirk said ‘black women do not have brain processing power.’”
This claim has spread across social media via a video clip, in some cases overlaid with ominous music, in which the poster deceptively misquotes what Kirk specifically said.
What he actually said: At no point in the segment did Kirk discuss “black women” as a group. The clip names specific individuals whose positions on issues such as affirmative action Kirk disagreed with. Yet the claim that Charlie said “black women do not have brain processing power” has gone viral.
So Kirk never said the exact things he has been accused of. But was he racist?
In one interaction, Kirk says “I think race is completely and totally irrelevant […] Race means nothing. I care about your actions, your character, and most importantly, your soul.”
Kirk also strongly rejected any framework that makes race the core of civic life and had no patience for white nationalism.
Charlie Kirk: What does it mean to be an American? Is it a skin color or something else?
White nationalist: So, there's the current idea of what it means according to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act and all this bullshit that you guys spew. But if you go back to the original Founding Fathers, they intended this to be a European nation for white men of good stock and character.
Charlie Kirk: Can you show me where in the United States Constitution it says that?
Charlie Kirk: It wasn't in the Constitution because they didn't believe it! [...] Let me ask you another question […] What does the phrase E pluribus unum mean?
White nationalist: Why is that relevant?
Charlie Kirk: Because it was on every founding document and presidential seal from our founding, which means "out of many, one!" You, sir — and your ideology — is not conservative. It is right-wing identitarian and it has no place in the conservative movement, my friend. Get out of line! Get out of line!
Kirk also felt black Americans were often exploited and mistreated by the political left and believed that conservative policy would be more beneficial:
“For too long, black America has been used as tools by the left... I believe that black America can be revitalized, can be wealthier, can be richer, can have stronger families. And I refuse to live under the bigotry of low expectations that the left constantly uses.”
Again, one may disagree with this argument, but Kirk made it from the stated perspective of wanting to help black Americans.
Free Speech and Government Pressure
On the other side of the aisle, the political right has reacted to Kirk’s assassination by espousing illiberal and authoritarian views about free speech that run completely contrary to everything Kirk believed and stood for. Attorney General Pam Bondi has warned the American public “we will go after you” for any “hate speech” regarding Charlie Kirk. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has signaled his intention to weaponize the federal government to censor anti-right-wing content. And the President of the United States and his supporters have encouraged what can only be described as a right-wing cancel culture.
As for Kirk himself, he tweeted in 2024: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Kirk is correct about hate speech. In the United States, unlike in many other nations, offensive speech is protected by the Constitution. From his perspective, Kirk understood that it was liberal — rather than leftist — values that fostered meaningful conversations amid disagreement.
“There's a difference between liberals and leftists. It's a very big difference. A liberal is someone I will disagree with and we'll have a wonderful time. We'll go out to dinner and we'll consider each other friends. A liberal will have the conversation, and they'll say we might not agree on this, but I still treat you with respect and I really like you as a person. A leftist will try to shut you up before you even open your mouth. A leftist is rooted in intolerance.”
A few days after Kirk’s murder, late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel wrongfully claimed in an on-air monologue that the shooter was part of the MAGA movement and that the political right was shamefully lying about that to score points. The remarks caused a right-wing uproar and ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air “indefinitely.” Several affiliates, including Nexstar stations, also stopped airing the show. Within days, parent company Disney said the program would return, explaining the pause as a cooling-off decision taken during a volatile moment and after discussions with Kimmel.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr even went as far as suggesting revoking ABC’s broadcasting license.
Republican senators, including Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, called the remarks “absolutely inappropriate” and likened them to intimidation, emphasizing that private employers can discipline employees but government coercion over speech crosses a dangerous constitutional line.
Amid the controversy, President Donald Trump publicly praised Carr, defended the prospect of the federal government cracking down on networks over political “hate speech”, and repeatedly went out of his way to clash with and threaten ABC reporters.
This sequence of events raised the classic “jawboning” concern: even without a formal order, state pressure can chill editorial decisions and inspire self-censorship. That is why media-law scholars and First Amendment groups flagged the situation and why Disney ultimately emphasized that the show’s return came after internal discussions rather than government action.
A private network can discipline a host for brand reasons if it wants to. That’s a private decision. What crosses the line is government pressure. State pressure contaminates the ability of private companies to operate freely, and for any self-identified conservative to cheer this behavior because, in this case, it concerns speech they dislike, is hypocritical. Sadly, many on the MAGA right are not only unconcerned with hypocrisy, they embrace it.
When Jimmy Kimmel faced backlash for spreading misinformation, the pressure for his removal came not just from public outcry, but from government officials and agencies. While some on the right celebrate this as a long-overdue comeuppance, they fail to recognize the perilous precedent being set. In adopting the cancel culture playbook of the far-left, they are reinforcing a cycle that guarantees these same tactics will be used against them when cultural and political power inevitably shifts again. Using government power to silence opposition is a dangerous game, regardless of who is playing it. It’s a direct contradiction of the principles of free expression that many on the right purport to champion. The argument that "they did it first" is an excuse for hypocrisy and an invitation to endless conflict.
Resisting the urge for vengeance and retribution and adhering to fundamental principles such as free expression — especially for those with whom we vehemently disagree — is not a sign of weakness. It is the only way to break the illiberal cycle in American politics. The alternative is a postmodern future where power determines what is true and what can be said. The remedy to bad ideas isn’t government intervention, it’s conversation. Charlie Kirk knew this. He lived and died for it. There is no greater dishonor to his life’s work than to use his murder as a justification for feeding the First Amendment into a wood chipper.
Published Sep 25, 2025
