濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术好不好濮阳东方医院妇科做人流咨询电话,濮阳东方医院看妇科病技术可靠,濮阳东方在哪里,濮阳东方妇科医院做人流手术好吗,濮阳东方医院男科看阳痿技术非常专业,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮好吗,濮阳东方医院治疗早泄收费合理

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) - People who live on Bonita Drive in Encinitas want the city to stop a 10-home development on their street. They say it will make the area more dangerous if a wildfire breaks out."It's a huge concern," says Sione Schad-Siebert. "When the fire starts, and Santa Ana winds blow, they move fast, and you need to get out fast."Plans for the project call for 10 single-family homes to be built on a mostly empty 2.4-acre lot. People who live around it say adding the homes will allow fires to spread faster and cause more congestion on the street if people need to evacuate.Schad-Siebert showed 10News parts of the street where the road narrows to just over the width of a couple of cars. She says fire engines can hardly get through as it is. She also worries that a nearby open-space nature trail could catch fire and decimate the neighborhood."If there's ever a fire in the canyon or if a house here catches on fire, the fire department will not get here in time to stop the fire from spreading through the neighborhood because of poor access," she says.The City Planning Commission approved the project in November, but the residents have filed an appeal.In the appeal, they list fire danger as one of six problems the new homes will bring to the area. Among the other claims are traffic issues, environmental concerns, and questions about ways they say the project skirted city rules during the approval process."I feel like the city's kind of losing its soul," says Schad-Siebert. "I feel it's selling out to developers from out of town that just want to make a lot of money."Housing has been a problem in Encinitas, where city leaders have traditionally shunned large developments. Until 2019, it had been more than two decades since the city successfully submitted a housing and growth plan to the state. The mayor says that has to change.As for the appeal, the Planning Department staff issued a 23-page memo refuting the claims point-by-point. It says the City Council should deny the appeal and move forward with the project.Schad-Siebert says if that happens, she and her neighbors plan to file a lawsuit to stop the construction.The Encinitas City Council will vote on the appeal at Wednesday night's meeting, which begins at 6 pm. They will also allow for public comment before voting. 2327

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

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) - Students in the San Dieguito Union High School District won't be returning to campus in January.Monday morning, the school board voted to confirm that it will not continue with its reopening plan that would have brought students back on campus one day a week beginning on January 4th, with the option of returning five days a week on the 27th.The move comes after the union representing the teachers filed a lawsuit last week to block the return.Jason Barry's daughter is in 7th at Earl Warren Middle School. She was looking forward to returning to class."Here we are again, kicking the can down the road. I hope this isn't a pattern that is going to continue," said Barry.Barry broke the news to his daughter Monday after the board vote. "She's gone from, as this whole thing has gone on, she's gone from tears to frustration to just quiet," said Barry.Newly elected Trustee Michael Allman was the only board member to vote against ratifying the settlement reached last week with the union."We offer all this accommodation so that these essential workers, who are guaranteed the highest paid in the county can teach our kids, and they say thank you by filing a lawsuit , and then they offer to settle as they hold the kids as bargaining chips and I just don't want to reward that behavior," said Allman during the meeting which was held via Zoom.The California Teachers Association filed a legal petition on behalf of the San Dieguito Faculty Association. The union said the district's reopening plan violated the state's public health rules concerning the pandemic.Under the state's health mandate, schools that were already open for in-person instruction were allowed to remain open. The legal petition challenged the district's definition of "open," alleging that none of the schools was open for regular instruction; instead, they were open for small cohorts.The union also estimated up to 20% of teachers would not return in January either for health concerns or childcare issues.Barry and other parents are starting a grassroots effort to make it easier for people to become substitutes. Many parents say they are willing to step in to help fill the void. The district has said there is a shortage of subs."Whatever I need to do, to get this across the line if I need to be a substitute teacher, be one body that can help, I'm going to do that," said Barry.Barry said he worries about the impact of remote learning on his daughter's development."This whole situation is causing a stunting to, I would say, an entire generation of kids who should be engaging, learning, growing, expanding their boundaries, and now they are stuck at home not testing themselves with their peers. There's going to be a loss that we won't see, and this school board or that school board will be long gone, and we'll still be dealing with it," said Barry.Union leaders say most teachers want to return to the classroom, but not at the height of the pandemic. 2979

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) -- Suspects reportedly forced employees onto the ground and into a vault during a robbery at a credit union in Escondido, according to the FBI. Police were called to the San Diego County Credit Union on the 1800 block of South Center City Parkway just before 10 a.m. after receiving reports of a robbery. After arriving on scene, police confirmed that a takeover-style robbery had occurred. According to the FBI, four men entered the credit union completely covered and armed with weapons. The suspects ordered employees to the ground and forced an employee to go into the vault to retrieve money. After grabbing the cash, the suspects fled the credit union in a late 80 or early 90s suburban, the FBI says. 741

ESCONDIDO (CNS) - A 57-year-old man in a pickup truck was killed at a head-on collision in Escondido with a Honda Accord, a police lieutenant said Saturday.The crash involving the 2005 Honda Accord and a 1996 Toyota Tacoma occurred on Valley Parkway, north of Beven Drive, said Escondido police Lt. Michael Kearney.The Honda was going west on Valley Parkway and the pickup truck was going eastbound on Valley Parkway, just north of Beven Drive, at the time of the crash, Kearney said.Police were dispatched to the scene at 11:30 p.m Friday, where the 57- year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene and paramedics rushed the motorist in the Honda, a 36-year-old man, to Palomar Medical Center, where he was being treated for non-life threatening injuries, he said.Escondido police asked witnesses to the crash to call them at (760) 839-4470. 851