哪里治幻听好南昌南昌去那家医院治疗幻觉好,南昌医院治心理怎么样,南昌哪家医院治精神障疗效好,治疗幻幻症南昌哪家医院收费少,南昌那个医院精神治的好,南昌癔症到哪里治,南昌周村比较好精神病医院

Virginia lawmakers on Tuesday abruptly adjourned a special session aimed at gun safety that was called following last month's 138

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has largely upheld the Federal Communications Commission's controversial repeal of its net neutrality rules for internet providers, finding the agency didn't overreach when it decided in 2018 to deregulate companies such as Comcast and Verizon.The decision marks a victory for the Republican-led commission in light of opposition by consumer groups, tech companies and local government officials who had sued the agency in a years-long battle over the future of the open internet.But there is an important caveat: The court struck down a key aspect of the agency's order that could lead to further battles at the state level.Tuesday's opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is a win for the broadband industry, which had argued the regulations created uncertainty for internet providers and were too restrictive. But the decision also handed a partial victory to net neutrality advocates in that it provides a path for states to create their own net neutrality rules.Both sides were quick to declare victory.In a statement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the decision is a win "for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet." He added: "A free and open Internet is what we have today and what we'll continue to have moving forward."Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a net neutrality advocate, cheered the court's decision as it "vacates the FCC's unlawful effort to block states and localities from protecting an open internet for their citizens."For years, consumer groups have pushed for tough net neutrality rules. Advocates say providers should not be allowed to slow down websites, block access to apps or give faster service to preferred partners, which could distort the market for online services. Under those principles, Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to speed up loading times for, say, Yahoo, which it owns. Similarly, Spectrum could not downgrade Netflix as a way to deter cord-cutting.In light of the decision, Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said the fight to preserve the principle of net neutrality "is far from over."Consumer groups succeeded in 2015 when the FCC decided to regulate internet providers much like legacy telephone companies. The agency imposed clear rules banning the blocking, throttling or accelerating of Web content by internet providers and reserved the right to investigate business practices that risked violating the spirit of net neutrality.Opponents charged that the rules were a gross overreach by the government. Industry groups argued the constant danger of FCC investigations created business uncertainty and the rules opened the door to direct federal regulation of broadband prices.When President Trump took the White House, Republicans gained control of the FCC. Among the first acts Pai took as the new chairman was a plan to unwind the rules. Pai argued that the net neutrality regulations were heavy-handed and discouraged internet providers from upgrading their networks. In 2017, the FCC voted to repeal major parts of the rules, including the bans on blocking and slowing of websites.Internet providers say they are not interested in blocking or slowing down websites anyway.USTelecom, an association representing broadband providers, said the litigation showed how "Congress must end this regulatory rinse and repeat cycle by passing a strong national framework that applies to all companies."But internet providers have lobbied for the freedom to strike deals with websites to provide premium service, possibly in exchange for extra fees.Some policymakers have argued that practice, known as "paid prioritization," could benefit advanced applications like self-driving cars and telemedicine. Critics worry it could become an unbearable cost for some websites and tech companies — giving wealthy, established firms the power to dominate while marginalizing smaller businesses that can't afford to pay.Those arguments figured prominently in the legal battle over net neutrality. A coalition of critics led by Mozilla sued the FCC in hopes of blocking Pai's deregulation.The case was decided with the panel's three judges concluding the FCC acted lawfully when it decided to undo the Obama-era rules and regulate internet providers more lightly.But the opinion also struck down efforts by the FCC to prevent state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws and regulations. The court on Tuesday rejected that approach, saying it amounted to an attempt to "categorically abolish all fifty States' ... authority to regulate intrastate communications." The FCC could still seek to preempt states on a case-by-case basis, setting the stage for multiple legal tussles.Andy Schwartzman, a lecturer in law at Georgetown University, said the decision "provides a roadmap to rules that can protect the promise of a vibrant internet that serves people, not the big cable and telcom companies." 5018

Two brothers who authorities said took part in a staged attack on actor Jussie Smollett were "betrayed" by the celebrity, their attorney told CNN on Monday."I believe my clients were betrayed," Gloria Schmidt said on CNN's "AC 360," referring to brothers Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo. "You have to look at what kind of relationship they had with Mr. Smollett. He's a celebrity. This is somebody who is in a position of power over my clients."She added: "We've seen a lot of stories in the news where celebrities think they might be above the law. It's just not the case."Smollett reported to police in January that he had been attacked in Chicago in an incident that ended with a noose around his neck. Police initially investigated the case as a possible hate crime.Mark Geragos, Smollett's attorney, spoke with Anderson Cooper on Friday and said Smollett refused to sign a police complaint after the incident because "he could not believe it.""I haven't' seen one piece of evidence and they don't have one piece of evidence that they've turned over that links Jussie to this," Geragos said, referring to allegations that the attack was orchestrated.Smollett, an actor on the Fox drama "Empire," was recently indicted on 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct by a Cook County grand jury.The counts in the indictment obtained by CNN say Smollett gave statements to a Chicago police officer after the incident and to a detective. Details in some of those statements were different, the indictment says.The indictment says Smollett told police he was attacked by two men who used racial and homophobic slurs during an encounter at 2 a.m.After police detained the two brothers, who were described as "persons of interest" in mid-February, police sources revealed that authorities suspected Smollett knew the men and had paid them ,500 to stage the attack. The men were released without being charged.Smollett has denied any involvement in orchestrating an attack.Schmidt, the attorney for the brothers, said her law firm did its own investigation."We were able to fish it out, if you will, and tell the commander there's something that doesn't match with the narrative that had been put out by Mr. Smollett," she said.She said the brothers and Smollett met through a working relationship."They were (fitness) trainers; they were training him," she said.She said the younger brother had known Smollett "a couple years" before this incident.Schmidt sidestepped answering direct questions from Cooper about the ,500."The training ... was something that was pre-discussed prior to January 29. It was cashed; it was deposited. ... These are details that came out with my clients fully cooperating with the police," she said.When asked if the check had anything to do with the attack, Schmidt said it's not a "clear-cut answer.""You have to look at they were friends and the money did include services for training, but you have to look at it within the context of 'I'm this star and you're someone who I can help and I would like to pay you for something and oh, can you do me this favor.' So was it for training? Was it not for training? I think it's a little bit of both," she said.She said her clients are remorseful for their role in the situation and they hope it opens dialogue for people in minority communities and those that have suffered hate crimes."They feel regretful that they put their trust in the wrong person," she said. 3451

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Former President Barack Obama released an essay Monday on how he thinks Americans can sustain the momentum of the George Floyd protests to bring about real change. Obama first acknowledged that the protests that have popped up across the U.S. represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over the failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system. He also pointed out that while the overwhelming majority of protesters have been peaceful, a small minority resorted to violence in various forms, putting innocent people at risk and compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are already struggling. “I saw an elderly black woman being interviewed today in tears because the only grocery store in her neighborhood had been trashed,” wrote Obama. “If history is any guide, that store may take years to come back. So, let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.”Obama goes on to argue that protests alone won’t bring about the change that is needed to stop police brutality. He says it will a combination of activism and getting people out to vote for people who care about police reform, in local and national elections alike.“So, the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both,” wrote Obama. “We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.”Lastly, Obama called on activists to make their demands for criminal justice and police reform specific, so it will be harder for elected officials to “offer lip service” and then fall back into business as usual once protests stop. “The content of that reform agenda will be different for various communities. A big city may need one set of reforms; a rural community may need another,” he wrote. “Some agencies will require wholesale rehabilitation; others should make minor improvements.”Obama says every law enforcement agency should have clear policies, including an independent body that conducts investigations of alleged misconduct. At the end of his essay, the former president included a link to 2372

WASHINGTON, D.C. – For only the third time in U.S history, an American president faces the specter of impeachment.Having taken an oath, U.S. senators will act as a jury in the impeachment trial. A half-dozen members of the House will act as prosecutors and President Donald Trump will have his own defense team against charges of obstruction of congress and abuse of power."We're achieving what no administration has ever achieved before and what do I get out of it? Tell me. I get impeached,” President Trump told those gathered for an agriculture convention in Texas this past weekend.While impeachment trials have basic rules set out in the 19th century, senators can vote to amend them. Georgetown law professor David Super said that happened during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s.“They set up a bunch of special rules, but they didn't amend the permanent rules,” Super said. “So, the rules that we have go way back.”Then, there is the role of Chief Justice John Roberts who, by law, presides over the trial. Super said the chief justice’s role is critical, as he will rule over questions about evidence – though, a majority of senators could vote to overrule him.“There are a majority of Republicans in the Senate. So, in theory they could overrule the chief justice's decisions,” Super said. “But the chief justice was appointed by a Republican president, confirmed by a Republican Senate. And I'm not sure that almost all of the Republicans in the Senate are prepared to overrule his rulings.”So how long could all of this last? Experts say to look at it in terms of weeks, not months.“I don't think that either side has an incentive to have it go very long,” Super said.It remains to be seen whether or not witnesses will be called during the impeachment trial. The issue is bitterly dividing Republicans and Democrats – with Democrats arguing they should be allowed to call witnesses. 1924