Alexander Meiklejohn was a philosopher and university professor, although it is his legacy as an advocate of free speech for which he is best known. It is through his published work Free Speech (1948) and its Relation to Self Government that we can draw conclusions about his view of freedom of expression and democracy. Additionally, we can compare Meiklejohn's views through a closer analysis of his model of city hall debate and a comparison with Jurgen Habermas (1964) and his public sphere theory from which we will use examples. In the two theories outlined by Meiklejohn and Habermas, the relationship between freedom of expression and recognition of recognition in relation to democracy is specifically described and will be contrasted in opposite ways to put fourth the notions of their arguments and theories as they are exposed. The first point of mutual agreement that can be built upon concerns people and their rights towards themselves and others. Meiklejohn (1948) and Habermas (1964) agree that democracy cannot be achieved without recognizing that everyone first and foremost has a high degree of respect for one another. The need for mutual respect can be seen repeatedly throughout their texts, upon closer inspection when analyzing the arguments they present. The second similarity between Meiklejohn (1948) and Habermas (1964) is that they both created spaces for political discussion unhindered by political constraints. government influence. For Meiklejohn (1964), this is the true “public meeting” model as opposed to the “public sphere” model imagined or physically incapable of seeing by Habermas (1964). Deeper analysis of their theories on democracy and freedom of expression. As for the middle of the paper, do not declare that everyone can speak as they please, when they please, about what they please, to whom they please. This implies that Meiklejohn (1948) does not support the right of every individual to express themselves when they have something to say. It is therefore a limitation of an individual's right to be an autonomous person in a self-governing democracy. Similarly, Schauer recognized the limitations of Meiklejohn's (1948) theory of public meetings: To the extent that we support individual rights of expression, argument, and criticism, we are making assertions inconsistent with a vision of democracy based on the absolute sovereignty of the people. in its entirety. (1982, p. 41) This further confirms said limitation of Meiklejohn's theory because, as he states, yes, individuals have the right to speak, but it is the people as a whole that a conclusion can be made pulled. Meiklejohn (1948).