阜阳手足癣在哪治疗较好阜阳体癣医院在哪儿,痘痘费用阜阳,阜阳股癣怎样治,阜阳市专业祛痘价格,阜阳青春痘周六日门诊医院,阜阳专业医院痘印,阜阳专业的皮肤

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - Escondido Police investigated Monday a threat made against San Pasqual High School over the weekend. A nonspecific threat was posted on an old video circulating online, according to the Escondido Union High School District community relations officer. No details were provided about the nature of the threat or video.Escondido Police increased officer presence at the school Monday. “The safety of our students and staff remains our top priority,” the district said. 501

FALLBROOK, Calif. (CNS) - A 53-year-old Fallbrook man was fatally struck by a car while attempting to cross a street in Fallbrook, authorities reported Monday.A 58-year-old man was driving a Toyota Camry northbound on South Mission Road about 12:15 a.m. Sunday when the victim ran westbound across the northbound lanes near Peppertree Lane and was struck by the sedan, California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Latulippe said.The pedestrian was taken to Temecula Valley Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, the officer said. The victim's name was withheld pending family notification.The Toyota driver remained at the scene and intoxication was not a factor in the crash, Latulippe said. 695

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - Westfield Mall will be terminating its leases with two pet stores operating on their properties in San Diego County.It comes after two animal rights groups filed a lawsuit against Westfield and Bark Avenue, the pet store in the North County Fair mall.“We want to shut them down,” said Bryan Pease, attorney for the Animal Protection and Rescue League and Not One Animal Harmed.The complaint accuses Bark Avenue of unfair business practices. Despite a new state law that prohibits the retail sale of cats, dogs and rabbits, except for rescues, Bark Avenue has continued to sell purebred and designer puppies. RELATED: California limits pet store sales of cats, dogs and rabbits to rescue or shelter animals only“On the surface of it, the store is claiming these are from a rescue called Bark Adoptions. Well, Bark Adoptions is a fraudulent rescue that is run by the same people that own the store,” said Pease.A 10News investigation into Bark Adoptions is included as a resource in the lawsuit.Jasmin Ramirez, the manager of Bark Avenue told 10News she had not been served yet so she could not comment on the lawsuit.RELATED: Investigation into pet stores reveals 'puppy laundering scheme'She acknowledged that they will be leaving their location in the North County Fair, but said it was due to recent thefts.“We are currently in our efforts to move locations,” said Ramirez.Pease said lawyers for Westfield also told him they will terminate a lease with the Puppy Patch, a pet store in their National City mall.A spokesperson for Westfield only told 10News, “we don’t comment on litigation.”Both of the store’s leases will end in January. 1674

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) - City planners in Encinitas are seeking public input about the creation of 10 new pedestrian train crossings.The city currently only has six legal crossings, though much of the train tracks are unobstructed and can be crossed illegally.“Safety is one of our utmost concerns,” said Diane Langager, principal planner with the city.She said she has been working on the crossing project for about two years. In addition to safety, she said the city wants to make the area more accessible by walking and biking.“We’re doing everything we can to increase multi-modal transportation in the city,” she said.They have identified different locations where crossings are possible but want input from residents to see what their priorities are. 766

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