梅州医院哪家妇科正规梅州霉菌性阴道炎的医院,梅州什么时侯可以做流产,梅州人流哪家医院好,梅州衣原体感染性阴道炎,梅州市比较好的妇科医院,梅州几个月做人流合适,梅州急性尿道炎危害

Elliott Broidy, a venture capitalist and fundraiser for President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, is suing Qatar, saying they planted news stories in national newspapers that smeared him.Broidy alleges the Middle Eastern nation targeted him because of his ties to its rival, United Arab Emirates, and his criticism of Qatar. He says operatives from the country hacked his emails, fabricated some of their details and leaked them to major news outlets, resulting in negative news stories over the last month about international connections he had and ties to Russian companies.The complaint -- and those news stories central to Broidy's allegations -- touch on a possible thread of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which is looking into foreign influence around some top Trump officials.The embassy of Qatar said the lawsuit is an attempt to divert attention from media reports and is without merit."Mr. Broidy's lawsuit is a transparent attempt to divert attention from US media reports about his activities," a statement from Jassim Al-Thani, Media Attache for the State of Qatar in Washington DC, said."His lawsuit is without merit or fact. It is Mr. Broidy, not Qatar, who orchestrated nefarious activities designed to influence Congress and American foreign policy. It does not matter how many venues Mr. Broidy publishes his false accusations in, they will not become truth," the statement said.  1427

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) — An Escondido restaurant forced closed by the county for violating health orders has been approved to reopen.Hernandez Hideaway was closed last week after its owner allegedly refused to comply with San Diego County's public health orders for facial coverings and social distancing.According to the restaurant's Facebook page, the location was allowed to reopen on June 27.RELATED: New restrictions placed on bars, restaurants in San Diego County amid coronavirus“Hernandez Hideaway is clear to reopen. They have agreed to follow state restaurant reopening guidelines. This includes their commitment to use facial coverings and ensure social distancing. They are required to post their plan for their patrons to see," a county statement read.The county had reported last week that the restaurant refused voluntary compliance with health orders on multiple occasions. At the time, the owner, Rick Stevens, declined comment to ABC 10News."Mr. Stevens admitted that he was not compliant and state he will continue to operate without these COVID preventative measures and will not require staff to wear face coverings," the ordered stated, referencing a June 23 visit by county officials.RELATED: San Diego County not named to state's watch list, but leaders warn it may happen soonThe restaurant was the second establishment forced to close in the county over health order violations. In May, Pacific Beach's El Prez was closed following social media videos showing crowds of guests, many not social distancing or wearing facial coverings. The restaurant reopened days later.This week, the county issued new health orders setting a 10 p.m. curfew for restaurants and allowing only bars that also serve food to remain open ahead of the July 4 weekend.RELATED: Crowds expected as San Diego beaches remain open this 4th of July 1854

Facebook users will soon be able to clear their browsing history on the social network.On Tuesday, CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg said the company is adding a new privacy feature that lets you clear your browsing history on Facebook, including what you've clicked on and which websites you've gone to."In your web browser, you have a simple way to clear your cookies and history. The idea is a lot of sites need cookies to work, but you should still be able to flush your history whenever you want. We're building a version of this for Facebook too," he wrote in a Facebook post. 588

Even during this time of strong political divisiveness, lawmakers agree there should be changes to Section 230. Congressional committees have subpoenaed the CEOs and heads of major tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google multiple times to answer questions about possible bias, eliminating competition, allowing misinformation to flourish, etc., all trying to get to the heart of what should be done about Section 230.So, what is it?Section 230 refers to a section of just 26 words within the 1996 Communications Decency Act.It reads: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”This particular section makes it so internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.Which means, if a news website article makes false malicious statements about a person, that person can sue the publication for libel. However, if that article is posted on social media and spread to hundreds of thousands of people, the person can only sue the individual who posted the article and cannot hold the social media company responsible for spreading the article.The wording of Section 230 also allows internet companies, and more specifically social platforms, to moderate their content by removing or censoring posts that are obscene, violent or otherwise violate that specific platform’s terms of service and standards, so long as the social platform is acting in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.This has allowed online social platforms to grow and thrive, offering a space for users to share their thoughts and opinions, without the fear that those thoughts and opinions will get the platform in trouble. The wording for Section 230 came from established case law, including a Supreme Court ruling in the middle part of the 20th Century, which held that bookstore owners cannot be held liable for selling books containing what some might consider obscene content. The Supreme Court said it would create a “chilling effect” if someone was held responsible for someone else’s content.“Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any clams for moderating content,” said Jeff Kosseff, who wrote a book about Section 230 and how it created the internet as it is today.President Donald Trump in May signed an executive order that would clarify the scope of the immunity internet companies receive under Section 230.“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse,” the order reads.One of the issues raised in the executive order is the question of when does a social platform become a so-called “publisher” by making editorial decisions about the content on the platform. Those decisions include controlling the content allowed on the platform, what gets censored, and creating algorithms that spread certain content further or faster.Content publishers are held to different rules and responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission. News publishers can be held liable for the content they share on their platform, either in print or online.The president’s executive order came after Twitter started adding a fact-check warning to his tweets that contain false or misleading information. The executive order does not allow the president to change the law, but rather encourages his administration to take a look at Section 230.Lawmakers on both sides have concerns about how social platforms are abusing the protection they receive under Section 230, and have held several committee meetings.Many experts agree Section 230 cannot just be removed.If social platforms are suddenly held responsible for the content on their sites, there could be a whole new level of moderation and censorship as they clamp down on anything remotely controversial and unproven - possibly including some of the president’s own posts.Instead, lawmakers are investigating what changes, if any, could be made to Section 230 to offer clarity for both users and internet companies, as well as set boundaries for potential liability. 4178

Fans at a California softball tournament weren't happy when an official announced that the National Anthem would not be played before Friday's game, so they took matters into their own hands and started singing.The championship game between Clovis High School and Buchanan High School was the second game of the day at Fresno State's softball stadium. Organizers had played the anthem before the first game and didn't plan to do it again, reporter Nick King with CNN affiliate KMPH said. 515