Digital technology has revolutionized the way people of an entire generation communicate with one another. Communication that previously transpired face to face now happens online—“[w]ith cellphones and Wi-Fi hotspots, the Internet is constantly at individuals’ fingertips and messages are transmitted instantaneously.” An individual can do any number of activities— ranging from seeking spiritual guidance to wishing someone a happy birthday—with the click of a button or tap of a screen. An evolving nature of communication has created a frenzy of confusion over what constitutes “speech” and how such speech should be treated under American jurisprudence. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” yet the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that freedom of speech is not absolute. Speech is unprotected when the words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” These “fighting words” are now recognized as an exception to the Free Speech Clause, but the doctrine’s current conception and continuing vitality are frequently debated. This Note attempts to reconcile free speech and the fighting words doctrine with one of the newest, most unique digital communication tools: Snapchat. Through an evaluation of the first appellate decision regarding Snapchat and the fighting words doctrine, this Note seeks to clarify the boundaries of free speech and recommend a way to reconcile a 1942 doctrine with 2017 technology.
