Jemimah Roberts
Biographic Data
| ID | 6602909 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Jemimah Roberts |
| GIVEN NAMES | Jemimah |
| FAMILY NAME | Roberts |
| SIGNATURE | ROBERTS J |
| AFFILIATIONS | Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Australia |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-0297-404X |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 5 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 0 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 5 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2019 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 0 |
Uncertain and unstructured
In the 2025 cases of Babet , Ravbar and Farmer , the High Court characterised structured proportionality as a ‘tool of analysis’ that need not be applied expressly or ritualistically in every implied freedom of political communication case. Yet the majority stopped short of clarifying the circumstances in which structured proportionality remains applicable, if at all, and declined to definitively endorse a consistent justification test. This arti…
Combatting mis and disinformation in the digital age
Trump, truth and the 25th Amendment
This article critically assesses a key question raised repeatedly during the tenure of US President Donald Trump – could (or should) the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution have been invoked to suspend him from office? Although moot in a practical sense following the 2020 US presidential election, exploring this question from an Australian perspective provides the opportunity to reflect on fundamental questions of constitutional design and the …
Trump, Twitter, and the First Amendment
This article considers the constitutional implications of US President Donald Trump’s use of Twitter. This issue arose in the recent case of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v Trump, where a US federal court considered for the first time whether Trump’s actions in blocking users from his personal Twitter account violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In exploring the US court’s treatment of this question, the …
Constitutional ‘borrowing’ and freedom of expression
This article explores the potential role of US free speech doctrine as a source of learning for the High Court in developing its own jurisprudence in a broadly analogous area – the Australian (implied) freedom of political communication. The author argues in favour of a critical and self-reflective approach to this question, where the comparative utility of foreign doctrine is assessed by reference to its use in advancing Australian-specific cons…
No prominent works on this page.
Trump, Twitter, and the First Amendment
This article considers the constitutional implications of US President Donald Trump’s use of Twitter. This issue arose in the recent case of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v Trump, where a US federal court considered for the first time whether Trump’s actions in blocking users from his personal Twitter account violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In exploring the US court’s treatment of this question, the …
Constitutional ‘borrowing’ and freedom of expression
This article explores the potential role of US free speech doctrine as a source of learning for the High Court in developing its own jurisprudence in a broadly analogous area – the Australian (implied) freedom of political communication. The author argues in favour of a critical and self-reflective approach to this question, where the comparative utility of foreign doctrine is assessed by reference to its use in advancing Australian-specific cons…
Trump, truth and the 25th Amendment
This article critically assesses a key question raised repeatedly during the tenure of US President Donald Trump – could (or should) the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution have been invoked to suspend him from office? Although moot in a practical sense following the 2020 US presidential election, exploring this question from an Australian perspective provides the opportunity to reflect on fundamental questions of constitutional design and the …
Combatting mis and disinformation in the digital age
Uncertain and unstructured
In the 2025 cases of Babet , Ravbar and Farmer , the High Court characterised structured proportionality as a ‘tool of analysis’ that need not be applied expressly or ritualistically in every implied freedom of political communication case. Yet the majority stopped short of clarifying the circumstances in which structured proportionality remains applicable, if at all, and declined to definitively endorse a consistent justification test. This arti…
Law (4 works) · Law (4 works) · Political science (4 works) · Sociology (4 works) · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection (3 works) · Politics (3 works) · Project commissioning (3 works) · Publishing (3 works) · Computer Science (2 works) · Constitution (2 works)