Media Censorship

If a statement in the media is deemed offensive, the relevant authorities should first consider the contents before deciding to block the information because in most cases the media contents are censored without the public getting to know what information was all about but censorship is justifiable when media contents cross the lines by failing to protect respect individual rights or promoting undesirable contents like sex and violence.
In the USA, the Super Bowl has always attracted some media censorship owing to a large number of diverse viewers of the program. Also recently, the SodaStream ad by Scarlet Johansson was censored since it was also deemed as being offensive to Coke and Pepsi as major players in the carbonated drinks where Scarlet Johansson is seen be saying ‘‘Sorry, Coke, and Pepsi’’ (OConnor). The SodaStream advertisement was unrightfully censored by the Super Bowl bigwigs despite the fact that it was promoting home-based soda making machines that are environmentally friendlier and healthier. It censorship was made because Pepsi had sponsored the halftime show and Coke has also been a major sponsor of the event. Daniel Birnbaum as the CEO SodaStream expressed his disappointment at the censorship because the uncensored version received millions of views on the internet. GoDaddy is another company whose commercials have always been censored because they seemingly touch on sensitive issues. For instance, the recent advertisement of selling puppies online when the animal rights group claimed the advertisement was poking fun against the animals, a move that seemingly denied the company the chance and the right to gain from the online venture.
One of the arguments I propose against media censorship is that ‘‘it infringes the media’s freedom of speech and expression’’ (Shiner, and Sara Weaver). Therefore, when a government&nbsp.or any other influence group in the society decides to block information from the public, they are actually infringing on this fundamental right.&nbsp.