濮阳东方妇科技术专业濮阳东方男科医院割包皮手术先进,濮阳东方医院看阳痿技术非常哇塞,濮阳东方医院割包皮价格收费透明,濮阳东方男科医院评价好很专业,濮阳东方医院治阳痿评价好收费低,濮阳东方妇科医院价格不贵,濮阳市东方医院收费非常低

ESCONDIDO (KGTV) -- Hundreds of North County school children were surprised Thursday with a new book for National Reading Day, along with a visit from Clifford the Big Red Dog. 10News employees, with help from the Scripps Howard Foundation, donated 3,000 books to elementary schools in Fallbrook and Escondido. It was the most books ever donated by the station in the annual “If You Give a Child a Book…” campaign, and nearly twice as many as last year, said Community Outreach & PR Manager Patty Thompson.Kindergartners and first graders at Live Oak Elementary in Fallbrook and Farr Avenue Elementary in Escondido lined up to greet Clifford and pick out a book of their own. Other books will be donated to libraries in the districts, Thompson said.At Live Oak Elementary, one girl picked out a new book about Barbie. “I like to read because sometimes, when it’s a fairy tale, it can take you to magical places,” she said.“A lot of these kids can’t afford books,” said Live Oak Elementary librarian Stacey Regotti.Farr Avenue principal Lizeth Lopez said encouraging students to read early is critical.“Data shows that if we can’t get our kids to read by third grade, their future may be limited,” she said. “So starting at 4, 5, and 6 years old is when we can catch them.”10News is owned by the E.W. Scripps Company. Scripps-owned stations across the country took part in Thursday’s event, distributing more than 172,000 books to children in need. The company’s corporate foundation, the Scripps Howard Foundation, matched donations by Scripps employees.The San Diego County Office of Education and Scholastic Book Fairs of San Diego also contributed to the book giveaways in the North County. 1705

Everyone can relax. Diddy is still Diddy.The mogul born Sean Combs set the internet a-Twitter over the weekend when he announced on his birthday he was changing his name to "Brother Love.""I'm just not who I am before, I'm something different," he said. "So my new name is 'Love,' a.k.a. 'Brother Love.'"Given that Combs has at various points in his rap/fashion/entrepreneurial career gone by Puffy, Puff Daddy, Puff, etc. it seemed entirely feasible.But Diddy posted a video Monday on his official Instagram account saying he was just kidding and remarking, "Well, ladies and gentlemen, today I've come to the conclusion that you cannot play around with the internet.""Due to the overwhelming response from the media out there, and just due to there not wanting to be any confusion... I was only joking, okay," said the artist still known as Diddy. "I didn't change my name. It was just part of one of my alter egos. One of my alter egos is 'Love.'"To play on one of his more famous hits, "Mo money, mo names, mo problems."A brief history of Diddy's name changes: 1072

EUCLID, Ohio — The woman who filed a federal lawsuit against a Euclid Police officer Thursday said she was humiliated and feared for her life when the Ohio officer allegedly assaulted her.In an interview on Friday with WEWS, Euclid, Ohio resident Shajuan Gray, 46, described in detail what she said happened on March 27, 2017, when Officer James Aoki came to her apartment.Gray said she was in the shower when she heard a knock on the door that day.She came out with a towel on and saw Aoki outside. She cracked the door open and asked what was going on.“He started shouting he was tired of me, got complaints about me and to turn down my music,” Gray said. “Which I did because at this point I’m flabbergasted. I’m shocked, like, what is this about?”Gray said that’s when Aoki put his foot in her door and “barged” into her apartment without probable cause. She said he then slammed her against the freezer and arrested her, leaving bruises on her body.“As he’s slamming me and pushing me against the freezer and refrigerator, he’s twisting my arms up in an uncomfortable position,” she said. “I’m telling him then, ‘You’re hurting me. Why are you doing this to me? Please stop.’ ”In the lawsuit, Gray alleged she was only wearing a bath wrap at the time of the incident, and it fell off while Aoki assaulted her, exposing her chest. She claimed he would not allow her to get dressed before he took her to the police department. You can read the lawsuit below: Aoki did not have a body camera on during the incident.Later, an assisting officer arrived, who was wearing a body camera. That video showed Gray walking down the stairs of her apartment in handcuffs wearing only a towel. She can be heard asking to be allowed to put on clothes and telling officers they're hurting her. “So at this point, I’m screaming and yelling with all the mixed emotions going on, crying, just in disbelief that this was happening,” Gray said. “[I was] humiliated, embarrassed, disrespected, everything. Just ashamed.”Gray also said after Aoki arrested her, he slammed her against the police cruiser.She said she feared for her life.“This is the point where I’m asking him and telling him, ‘Please let me get dressed.’ And I’m still saying, ‘You’re hurting me.’ Nothing. This man had nothing in his eyes,” she said. “It was just the worst day of my life.”After the incident, Gray filed a complaint with the Euclid Police Department. WEWS investigators obtained a copy of the complaint,as well as the findings of the police's internal investigation.These findings include Aoki's account of what happened. He said he responded to Gray's apartment on a criminal complaint of "excessive noise" called in by another resident, and heard the loud music coming from her residence.Police said Gray refused to provide her name and tried to shut the door on the officer. Police also alleged Aoki attempted to arrest Gray and she resisted. "You continued to resist and the officer used the force necessary to take you into custody," the findings said, in part. "It was unfortunate that your turbulent behavior caused you to have a wardrobe malfunction, although, according to video footage and in opposition to your statement, your top was up and your breasts were not exposed when you were escorted outside of the apartment complex in handcuffs."The internal investigation found Gray's complaint to be "not sustained."Gray was acquitted of the charges filed against her stemming from the incident, which included resisting arrest, obstruction of official business and noise violation charges.Her lawsuit, which alleges false arrest, malicious prosecution and excessive force, said Gray suffered and continues to suffer physical, emotional and psychological injuries, as well as economic losses.The injuries suffered by Gray were "preventable" had Aoki "not engaged in unconstitutional conduct in violation of her fundamental rights,” the complaint said.In addition, the lawsuit alleges the City of Euclid failed to "effectively" investigate the incident or discipline Aoki for "illegal behavior" and "false testimony."WEWS reviewed city records and found Aoki has been involved in 15 other incidents involving the use of force since 2016 — the eighth highest number of any officer within the police department.Gray’s lawsuit was the sixth filed against the city for excessive force in the last two years.Euclid Police has not responded to WEWS's multiple requests for comment. 4557

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) - A North County woman says she was scammed at a gas station by a performance 'worthy of an Oscar.'"We pull in and my husbands about to pump in the gas," said Alice. An ordinary trip to fill up turned eventful last month at the Shell gas station on Santa Fe Drive. "I see a man pull up in a black SUV, brand new and shiny," said Alice. Alice says a man in his 30s got out of the GMC Yukon and approached them."He was in head-to-toe designer clothes," said Alice. In the backseat was a well-dressed woman and a little girl."He says, 'Excuse me, Sir. I'm here vacationing from Dubai with my family and my wallet was stolen,'" said Alice. The man asked for some money for gas and then took out a ring."Here, take my ring. It's worth 0. I have money and plenty of jewelry at home. I just need money for gas and food," said Alice.Alice told the man to keep the ring and then had her husband put in on a pump with their credit card."I believed their story ... I put myself in their shoes. I would be devastated, and I would want someone to help me," said Alice.Days later, she learned from her cousin in Los Angeles those strangers were scammers. "I was the 4th person she knew of personally that this happened to. I was duped," said Alice."Then this past Wednesday, Alice was back at the gas station and filling up, when she saw something familiar," said Alice.It was another new GMC Yukon. Inside was a different family. She saw them talking with a young man, before pulling out a ring. "I ran over put my hand in front of the guy and said, 'You should be ashamed of yourself. This is a scam!" said Alice. She learned the family had a similar story about vacationing from Dubai. The SUV sped off, leaving behind a woman hoping others don't fall victim."It makes me angry. It's the giving season and they take advantage of that. They're actors. They played their part perfectly. They're going to get an Oscars, and I handed them the award," said Alice.Alice believes both vehicles had out-of-state license plates. She says she contacted the sheriff's department but was told this incident would likely be defined as panhandling, which isn't a crime. 2184