There are many interests that drive censorship in Zimbabwe. However, the main driving force for censorship appears to be political censorship involving intolerance to the ideas, expressions and opinions of others. This fear has manifested itself in various forms of suppression of artistic expression which is considered as dangerous or threatening security or threatening certain groups of people or individuals. In Re Alberta Legislation,51 the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic state and that it cannot be curtailed without affecting the rights of the people. 52 Further, in deciding to restrict freedom of expression the courts in Zimbabwe should also take into account international practices and principles as well as progressive legal thoughts from other jurisdictions. Each has to make its individual contribution to the quest and attainment of a just and decent society in which freedom of expression is cherished as an indispensable value.53 The ambit of freedom of expression covers not only information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, “but also those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”54 There is a considerable body of case law dealing with questions that Zimbabwean society has been grappling with, such as the limits of legitimate criticism, whether erroneous statements about public figures can be regarded as defamatory in the absence of malice or reckless disregard of truth. The latter has raised pertinent questions with regards to who a public figure is? What are the criteria for determining this question? What is the permissible latitude of criticism regarding public figures? [1938] 2 SCR 100 Nathwani v Commissioner of Police, Bombay 78 Bom L R, 1 53 The Article 19 Freedom of Expression Handbook, International and Comparative Law, Standards and Procedures, https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/1993handbook.pdf 54 Handyside v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 Dec. 1976, Series A no. 24, 1 EHRR 737. 51 52 42 | P a g e