In the world of social media, tensions often flare and a recent feud between writer Stephen King and the conservative community highlights just how quickly online discussions can devolve into chaos. Following the tragic assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, King made inflammatory remarks that drew swift backlash and legal implications.
Kirk, known for his strong conservative views, was shot during a speech at Utah Valley University while discussing the violence often attributed to the left. The news of his death shocked many, leading to a mixture of mourning and unfortunate celebrations from some on the left. One of the first responses came from Jesse Watters, a friend of Kirk’s, who expressed his grief on social media, calling Kirk a “PATRIOT” and urging unity in the face of devastation.
King’s reaction, however, was anything but respectful. In a post sparking outrage, he alleged, “He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’.” This claim is widely rejected as false, and legal experts have pointed out that such statements could potentially open King to a civil suit for emotional distress by Kirk’s family. Kirk’s death might preclude a defamation case, but the emotional impact of King’s comments could be substantial.
Senator Mike Lee was one of many to respond to King’s remarks, calling for Kirk’s estate to consider legal action. He tweeted, “Please share if you agree that the estate of Charlie Kirk should sue Stephen King for defamation over this heinously false accusation. He’s crossed a line. It will prove costly.” The senator’s reaction echoes a sentiment shared by many who believe King crossed an ethical line in his commentary.
As the online backlash intensified, King attempted to backtrack, stating, “I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.” This retraction, however, did little to quell the criticism he faced. Senator Ted Cruz sharply rebuked King, stating, “You are a horrible, evil, twisted liar. No, he did not. Your party—which you shamelessly shilled for—sent $100 billion to the Ayatollah… who does routinely murder homosexuals. Why are you so dishonest & filled with hate?” Cruz’s remarks encapsulated a broader frustration felt among conservatives about how Kirk’s legacy was portrayed amidst his tragic passing.
Unfortunately, King was not the only one receiving backlash. Some individuals took to social media to celebrate Kirk’s death. Amanda Dodson, a teacher, commented extensively on the outpouring of grief for Kirk, labeling him “a racist, xenophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, sexist, white nationalist mouthpiece who made millions of dollars inciting hatred in this country.” Dodson’s harsh critique painted Kirk as a villain rather than a victim, further dividing opinions.
In her remarks, Dodson exhibited a shocking lack of empathy, saying, “I extend absolutely no empathy for people like that.” Instead, she directed her sympathy toward Kirk’s children, wishing for their future to reflect values contrary to those she believed he represented. She concluded with a broader critique on gun violence, saying, “May all of our children grow up to live in a country that values their lives enough to take gun violence seriously and reject any person who would try to justify senseless gun-related deaths—especially the deaths of children.”
This clash of sentiments in the wake of Kirk’s assassination illustrates a troubling trend in public discourse, where tragedy becomes fodder for ideological battles. While some individuals are compelled to extend their sympathies and support for the victims, others resort to using these events as opportunities to promote their own narratives. Writers like King seem willing to risk reputational damage and legal consequences to push their views, often disregarding the human cost involved.
As the internet continues to react to these events, the divide seems only to grow. With polarizing statements and a lack of accountability, the discussions surrounding Kirk’s death reflect a deeper issue in the current state of society. Instead of coming together to mourn a loss, many seem more inclined to draw lines, assigning blame and celebrating divisions. This situation warrants a closer examination of how public figures wield their influence, especially during times of tragedy.
"*" indicates required fields
