By The Signal Editorial Board
“He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’.”
Those false words were typed by the prolific novelist Stephen King on his official X account in reaction to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during an appearance at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.
King was among the untold numbers of people from the supposedly compassionate left side of the political spectrum who either minimalized, rationalized or even out-and-out celebrated Kirk’s gruesome death.
Much of that celebration has been based in lies, distortion and disinformation that has become ever more rampant in our social media-obsessed society.
King’s tweet was called out as patently false by multiple users, including Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, who shared a tweet that Kirk himself had posted in 2019, saying, “I believe marriage is one man, one woman. Also gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone. I will always stand against people who wish to establish their own personal values as a reason to kick others out of our movement.”
That sentiment, for anyone who ever bothered to actually listen to Charlie Kirk’s own words rather than relying on memes and politically motivated distortions, was typical of Kirk: He had strong opinions. He voiced them. He was unapologetically religious and conservative. He welcomed debate and respectful disagreement.
If you were a college student who disagreed with Kirk — for example, on gay marriage, or abortion — he would visit your university, put a microphone in your hand and invite you to disagree with him. He would hear you out. Then he would make his case. He would challenge your reasoning. He would tell you why he thought you were wrong, and would do so respectfully.
He convinced some people who attended his events on college campuses. But not all of them. And sometimes the crowds were hostile.
Truth be told, not even all conservatives agreed with everything Charlie Kirk had to say. We didn’t. But whether you agree with him, or not, isn’t really the point. The point is, Charlie Kirk engaged in civil debate — then was assassinated for his opinions.
We won’t pretend that this is the first act of political violence in recent years in America. Nor will we pretend that all acts of political violence are perpetrated from the left. Democrats, too, have been targeted by political violence from the right, and that is just as wrong and sickening as was the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
We should stand for none of it. Yet, even standing up against it is chilling, frightening.
In a way, that assassin’s bullet was aimed at more than just the one man who suffered the devastating fatal wound to the neck. It was aimed squarely at the First Amendment.
Charlie Kirk was killed over … speech.
And his death spawned a sickening wave of reaction on social media, and even from politicians and mainstream media pundits who were all too quick to blame Kirk or President Donald Trump, ignoring their own undisputable role in the overheated rhetoric of recent years.
Worse, a recurring theme on social media has been, “He got what was coming to him.”
Really?
You disagree with someone’s opinion, so they deserve a bullet to the neck? Is that really the state of discourse in America now?
There are glimmers of hope for civility. To her credit, one Santa Clarita Valley Democrat posted this on Facebook: “Violence is not the answer. No one deserves to be gunned down over ideologies. This is a despicable act and we are better than this. My heart aches for America today.”
She and this editorial board don’t agree on much, politically. But we agree on that.
What was so discouraging, though, were some of the comments from people who replied to her post. One example: “Omg f— him. Nazis deserve it.”
That kind of reaction — the victim-blaming, the overheated, hyberbolic rhetoric and unwarranted Nazi comparisons — it was real, not at all uncommon, and only perpetuates the potential for more violence, not less.
It also says a lot about the person who would write it, and even further, put their own name on it. Do you think there’s much chance of reasoning with someone who would unapologetically make such a post?
Back to the prolific author of horror novels: Stephen King redeemed himself somewhat, by doing something that very few have done after being called out for posting something that is blatantly false in such an emotionally charged time: “I was wrong, and I apologize. I have deleted the post.”
In response to a post by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, King added, “This is what I get for reading something on Twitter without fact-checking. Won’t happen again.”
It highlights how important — and apparently rare — media literacy is among the populace. Too many people lack the ability, or desire, to find truth in the jungle of social media. People see a meme, assume it’s true, and re-post it without a second thought.
Regrettably, even if King doesn’t do it again, many will. Then, it will spread and spread and build and build until it makes someone else angry enough to engage in another act of political violence. That’s the slippery slope we’re on.
Our hearts ache for America, too.
