梅州凹陷乳头如何矫正梅州超导打胎 费用,梅州打胎到底痛痛,梅州慢性子宫颈炎怎么治,梅州去皱拉皮手术,梅州霉菌阴道炎症治疗,梅州得了阴道炎怎么治,梅州微管打胎多少钱

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

ESCONDIDO (CNS) - Two children sparked a small fire in an Escondido church after finding a lighter in a classroom there, fire officials said.Escondido firefighters and police were dispatched just before 1 p.m. Sunday in response to a report of a possible structure fire somewhere near South Escondido Boulevard and West Seventh Avenue, Battalion Chief Mike Bertrand said. Officers arrived on scene first and discovered the blaze was inside the Iglesia Bautista Fundamental meeting house at 221 West Seventh Ave."Officers ensured that the building had been evacuated, as church services had just concluded, and confirmed that the fire was located in a second floor classroom," Bertrand said. "Escondido fire units arrived on scene and were able to contain the fire to the room of origin."Crews knocked down the flames in eights minutes, Bertrand said. Five engines and one water truck responded, and no firefighters or churchgoers were injured.A fire investigator responded to the scene and determined that two children started the blaze with a lighter they found in the classroom, Bertrand said. Fire officials said the incident is a reminder to ensure matches and lighters are stored safely and that all buildings have a fire evacuation plan. 1251

ESCONDIDO, Calif., (KGTV) -- Community members are coming to the realization that a hate crime occurred in their neighborhood. Many came to witness the damage. 10News spoke to a man who brought his children to the arson scene saying this was a teachable moment.It was a real-life lesson that Yusef Miller never thought he would teach his sons Naeem and Dario at their home mosque. Exactly one week ago, Miller led an interfaith prayer vigil in Escondido's Maple Street Plaza, after a gunman killed 50 Muslims at two New Zealand mosques in a terror attack. But that was 6,900 miles away. The fire was steps from his home. "We didn't anticipate that this would happen here, and so soon after our prayer vigil," Miller said. Escondido Police said what happened early Sunday morning was a targeted arson. The perpetrator left graffiti, referencing the New Zealand attacks. This act of terrorism already had Escondido Police on high alert."Immediately following the shooting at the New Zealand mosque, and informed the folks here locally, and said we will be doing extra patrols," Lt. Chris Lick of the Escondido Police Department said. But clearly, it was not enough. Sunday morning at around 3:00, someone set fire to the side wall of the Islamic Center of Escondido. Police said five people were sleeping inside when the fire started. But mosque members were immediately able to extinguish the flames before fire crews arrived. No one was hurt."We thought we were pretty relaxed, even though we were vigilant. But now that this happened here, we are hyper-vigilant now. This can happen anywhere to anyone," Miller said. "Whoever did this, they meant business. This wasn't just a threat. They had the tools to actually harm people and take lives."His 12-year-old son, Naeem looked at the damage with a blank stare. "It's like you can't be safe anywhere," Naeem Miller said. It was a life lesson Miller wished he never had to teach. But it was an important one on reality."So guys, remember," he said to his sons. "Be safe when you're walking around here. There are people up to no good. But there are a lot of people out here doing good too. Ok? So don't be too nervous walking around here, but still be aware. We're going to be Muslim no matter what. Muslim forever. But be safe. Ok?"Miller is inviting the public to join them in a Silent prayer and safety vigil tonight at the Islamic Center of Escondido at 8pm-9pm. 2423

Esteban Santiago has pleaded guilty to shooting and killing five people and injuring six others in the baggage area at a Fort Lauderdale Airport, and he says he doesn't know why he did it.The 28-year-old Anchorage, Alaska resident pleaded guilty to 11 charges in the January 6, 2017 attack at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in which he used a handgun to commit the act.Santiago says he "wasn't really thinking about it at the moment," according to an Associated Press report. The criminal has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but was found competent for the legal proceedings, the AP said.Santiago was sentenced to life in prison plus 120 years. He waived all rights to appeal, the AP reports.“Today the man responsible for the horrific, devastating, and tragic attack on numerous innocent people at the Fort Lauderdale airport was held accountable for his crimes,” Miami U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg said in a statement. A psychologist who met with the suspect throughout the past year says he is mentally better now and has started express shock and remorse for what he did. 1112

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