Press freedom has been described as an indispensable element of democracy. The vigilant and dauntless media, endowed with investigative abilities, duty bound to the informative and structurally organised to be representative, is a requisite in modern democracy. Yet the media today are faced with legal obstacles strewn across their way which restrict their roles in democracy. The demands of the state and individual interests have meant that ideal laws are those which strike a balance of rights. This work examines the laws in Zimbabwe and how they limit press freedom in the interests of state and individual rights to reputation. The study examines whether the legal limitations are justified in a democracy or not. The analysis shows that due to their historical origins, original intentions and their practices, the laws in Zimbabwe unnecessarily restricts press freedom. Further analysis reveals that of late the government is aware of the restrictiveness of the laws and has already adopted measures for reform. Examining the proposed reforms, the study shows that while positive steps have been taken, there still remains unresolved issues pertaining to restrictive provisions of the law which goverments wants to maintain.