贵阳可以治愈吗白癜风的医院有哪些贵阳正规医院治疗白癜风费用,贵阳看白癜风的医院是哪家,贵阳要到哪里看白癜风,贵阳专业白癜风治疗医院,遵义白癜风到哪家医院治疗好,遵义白癜风治疗哪家好,贵阳那里能看好白癜风

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A 19-year-old man was hospitalized Saturday morning with nine stab wounds suffered in a fight with another man in the Egger Highlands area of San Diego.Just before midnight Friday, the victim and the suspect got into a shouting match while standing in the doorway of the suspect's house in the 1700 block of Elm Avenue, according to Officer Robert Heims of the San Diego Police Department.The argument turned physical and the victim thought he was being punched, but it turned out he was being stabbed, Heims said. The victim was stabbed in both arms, the chest and stomach.He was transported to a hospital with non-life threatening wounds, Heims said.Officers responded to the suspect's home and arrested Homero Lunaosuna, 19, and recovered the knife used in the attack, Heims said. 809

SALT LAKE CITY — Some pornographic websites are beginning to comply with a new Utah law requiring that warning labels be attached to adult-oriented materials.At least three major porn sites — Pornhub, XTube and RedTube — have begun attaching an opt-in notification for visitors from Utah, which says that the state believes pornographic materials can be harmful if viewed by minors."It shows for a lot of businesses, they're more concerned about their pocketbook than they are about being prosecuted," said Rep. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, who sponsored the bill earlier this year.Brammer's bill got national attention, and he faced pushback and threats of lawsuits from the adult entertainment industry when it debuted earlier this year. XHamster, another adult website, even trolled the bill by posting a parody warning on its site for Utah viewers to see.Brammer watered down the original bill, and it passed the legislature. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, allowed it to go into law without his signature.The law allows people to bring a private civil action in court against a site for displaying "obscene" materials, but it would require someone to go to court and have something declared "obscene."A trade group representing the porn industry said it advises websites not to comply with the new law, believing it is still unconstitutional."No matter the message, the First Amendment restricts the government's ability to compel speech. Individual companies may choose to comply because it's easier than facing lawsuits or fines. We've never advised our members to comply, and don't believe this is being done in any widespread manner, but respect that a business may make decisions that limit potential liability," Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, said in an email. "As with similar, previous legislation in Utah, we'll eventually see the law challenged and overturned, and at no small expense to the Utah taxpayer. That's unfortunate, because that money and energy could be spent educating people about actually effective methods of protection, like parental filters."An email sent to Pornhub requesting comment on why it began posting warning labels was not immediately returned.While no websites have challenged the law in court, Brammer believes it will hold up."So far, it's been a lot of talk. I don't think that they will, if they do bring a legal challenge, I don't think they'll be able to succeed on that," Brammer said. "We have a difference of opinion on that. They haven't felt confident enough yet to bring a legal challenge and most of the companies, rather than make the challenge and spend the money on that, they're complying."Brammer said he ultimately would like to expand the legislation to allow for people to sue an adult website, even if they don't know who owns it.But he said he was not planning to bring that forward in the 2021 legislative session that begins in January. Other states have expressed interest in running similar legislation, he said.Brammer said the warning label law has already alerted parents when their child was re-directed to an adult site, and it's educated them about parental filters.He insisted his bill did not block adults from viewing pornography, just minors."If that's where they want to go, they're going to get there. And I'm not trying to stop that," he said. "But I'm giving them a chance if that's not where they want to go."This story was originally published by Ben Winslow on KSTU in Salt Lake City. 3510

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- The California Assembly has voted to ban the manufacture and sale of new fur products.Animal welfare groups have rallied around the bill, arguing the fur industry is inhumane and pointing to alternatives like faux fur.But opponents of the bill have countered that the proposed law would devastate fur retailers and manufacturers.Some California cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley, have already passed ordinances banning the sale of fur.The New York City council has also considered banning fur sales in America's biggest city.The bill would not include used fur products or furs used for traditional purposes. Leather, cowhide and shearling would be exempt, too.The measure, Assembly Bill 44, now goes to the state Senate. 782

SAN DIEGO — Demoralized business owners are venting their frustration and resentment over the new shutdown order meant to help stop the spread of the coronavirusMonday was day one of restaurants doing takeout only, bars, wineries and personal care shuttered, and hotels limiting travelers.This time, however, workers and employers alike feel like they're being hung out to dry."You're shutting us down, it's like, alright, here you go, good luck. That's what it feels like," said Cesar Vallin, who laid off 70 percent of the remaining staff at the Cloak & Petal restaurant in Little Italy. "The future is we're going to be here and we're going to get through this. I have to really question or ask myself if I want to stay in this business."For the second time since March, Cloak & Petal has been relegated to takeout only due to the new shutdown order. Bars, wineries and personal care salons are totally shut down, while hotels may have to turn away away non-essential out-of-state travelers. All of this - without the help of forgivable federal small business loans and a 0 dollar a week boost in unemployment, key stimulus during the first shutdown in march.The state says as of October, more than 118,000 San Diegans worked in food and drinking establishments.At the Intercontinental San Diego hotel on the waterfront, General Manager Chuck Abbott said he had to let go 10 to 20 percent of his staff - now that outdoor dining is outlawed. He expects occupancy to drop into the single digits this week as some leisure travelers cancel due to the order."Every day, every week, every time something else comes out, we have to readjust," Abbott said. "It's just hard."And they'll have to adjust to this reality for at least the next three weeks.Under the order, retail is able to remain open at 20 percent. 1827

SAN DIEGO (AP) - A military judge has released a Navy SEAL from custody in advance of his murder trial in the death of an Islamic State prisoner. Capt. Aaron Rugh said Thursday that he was freeing Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher as a remedy for interference by prosecutors. Defense lawyers accuse the prosecutors of misconduct for an effort to track defense lawyers' emails that they say violated attorney-client privilege. RELATED: Attorneys fight to free Navy SEAL in MCAS Miramar brig before trialRugh said Thursday he knew Navy investigators were trying to find the source of leaked court documents, but did not know of or approve any email tracking. Defense lawyers say the move amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and they want charges against Gallagher dismissed or prosecutors removed from the case. A military prosecutor downplayed the tracking effort, saying it did nothing more than record information on where and when emails were opened by recipients. RELATED: Rep. Duncan Hunter rallies support for accused Navy SEAL on Capitol HillDefense lawyer Tim Parlatore withdrew his motion to have the judge removed from the case after learning Rugh was kept in the dark about what prosecutors did. Gallagher will be freed as his lawyers continue to argue that the case be dismissed. He is scheduled to face trial June 10. There were gasps in the courtroom as Rugh made the announcement. Gallagher's wife put her head in her hands and burst into tears. 1476