濮阳东方妇科医院收费公开(濮阳东方医院做人流手术费用) (今日更新中)

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A local family is mourning the loss of a teenage girl killed in a weekend hit-and-run crash in the North County.Kirsten Tomlinson died in the early morning hours of June 6 after authorities said she was struck by a vehicle in an unincorporated part of Escondido.The 17-year-old was several feet from her home on Mesa Rock Road when the incident occurred. The teen was with her siblings and some friends, and as the group prepared to head inside for the night, Tomlinson was hit by a car as she crossed the street.RELATED: 17-year-old killed in unincorporated Escondido hit-and-runThe driver never stopped, according to witnesses and the California Highway Patrol.The teen’s father, William Tomlinson, said he attempted CPR, but it was too late.“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare. I’m never going to have her back now because somebody was irresponsible,” he said.CHP officials released a description of the possible suspect car, and after seeing it on news reports, someone called with a tip that led to the arrest of 29-year-old Paul Anthony Lissona.Tomlinson’s parents are thankful for whoever called in the tip.“I need to thank her and if for some reason, understandably so, she doesn't want to be, we need her to know how grateful we are,” Tomlinson’s mother, Erica Connery, said.RELATED: CHP makes arrest in fatal hit-and-run of teen in unincorporated EscondidoTomlinson was finishing school at Escondido High School and hoped to one day be a marine biologist or veterinarian.Her family also said she wanted to be a model, and her parents said she was always taking pictures.“She was a ball of life. She really enjoyed making people laugh and smile,” said Connery. “She always wanted just the perfect spot, the perfect picture. If it wasn't perfect, it was it was re-done 100 times and it doesn't matter if it took five minutes or if it took five hours.”Now, her family is looking for comfort in all of the pictures she left behind.“She took so many pictures and I am so grateful that she did because we have thousands of pictures,” said Connery.Lissona faces felony hit-and-run charges, and a CHP spokesperson said other charges are being considered. 2189

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

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - An embattled property in Escondido is entering a new chapter. Demolition of the Escondido Country Clubhouse began Thursday.It’s expected to take several days to clear the structure that caught fire last year that was site for criminal activity according to those who live near it.“I’m very excited it’s coming down,” said Kelly Richardson, who lives nearby. New Urban West plans on building 380 homes on the 109-acre property.“I feel like property values will go back up to where they were,” added Richardson, “I just like the idea of something here that's going to bring something together instead of separate them which is what I feel like has been happening for the last five years.”RELATED COVERAGE: 743

ESPN host Jemele Hill's tweet calling President Trump a "white supremacist" earned a stinging rebuke from Trump's press secretary on Wednesday.From the White House podium, Sarah Sanders said Hill's criticism of the president was a "fireable offense by ESPN."It was a highly unusual moment -- a White House official seemingly recommending that a Trump critic be booted from a television network.Trump aides have pressured media executives about anti-Trump commentators in the past, but those complaints were made in private. This time it was on-camera for all to see.The briefing room exchange came two days after Hill went on a tweetstorm about Trump.Hill has been vociferously critical of the president all year long, but she went further this time, calling Trump a "bigot," a "threat" and "the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime."The tweet that garnered the most reaction said: "Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists."Hill, an African American woman, followed up with this: "His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period."Amid an outcry from conservatives on social media, ESPN responded on Tuesday afternoon by reminding people that her comments "do not represent the position of ESPN."The network alluded to disciplinary action, but did not provide any details."We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate," ESPN said.Hill's remarks and ESPN's response gained widespread attention in conservative media circles on Tuesday and Wednesday, including on some of Trump's favorite Fox News shows.Fox's Tucker Carlson dubbed the network "Endless Stupid Political Nagging."For Carlson and others, Hill's comments were just the latest in a long line of examples of what they see as liberal bias inside ESPN.Washington Post White House reporter David Nakamura, who previously covered sports for the paper, asked Sanders on Wednesday if the president had a reaction to the controversy."I'm not sure if he's aware" of the tweets, Sanders said, "but I think that's one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make, and certainly something that I think is a fireable offense by ESPN."Some Trump critics said they were disturbed by Sanders' talk of a "fireable offense.""Today, the White House press secretary used the people's podium to call for the firing of an individual citizen, @jemelehill. Take that in," MSNBC's Joy Reid wrote.Hill had no immediate comment. Neither did an ESPN spokesman.Hill deleted Monday's incendiary tweets and hasn't posted anything since ESPN weighed in on Tuesday.There's been a substantial backlash to the backlash, with Hill's supporters saying she described Trump accurately, and should not be reprimanded for having done so.ESPN critics, on the other hand, said the network's response was too soft, and that a suspension or firing was in order.Sanders' remarks on Wednesday are sure to keep the debate raging.The-CNN-Wire 2990

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - Escondido restaurant owners made the decision to stay open for indoor and outdoor dining after a court ruled Friday evening they must be take out only.On Grand Avenue, it looked like a time warp. People were back under tents and umbrellas eating and drinking on the patio and some indoors.At Tony Pepperoni Pizzeria, the sign in the window blinked "Open.""The restaurant business isn't something you can say hey close, open, close," Tony Pepperony Pizzeria Owner Joe Locricchio said.That's exactly what he's been dealing with for the last 10 months."We have livelihoods on the line... I have single mothers okay, they need to buy diapers. I have guys that haven't had a job and they're walking out of here with money every night in tips." Locricchio said his 80+ employees are like family.Staying open hasn't come without challenges.He said he was criminally cited by Alcoholic Beverage Control and issued a cease-and-desist order by the City of Escondido.His restaurant on Grand Avenue just opened 17 days ago.When asked what he had to say to critics who think he should close and are worried about the coronavirus killing San Diegans, he said, "listen, my heart goes out to everybody that's passed away, one death is too many. To those critics who have something to say about my decision, listen I respect their decision. I respect that they have the choice to not have to come here they don't have to support me, all I ask is to support my decision."He said strangers have yelled and ranted to him about his decision.He said what is more compelling, is how the community has shown their support, "it's been an overwhelming response. It makes my hair stand up, I'm going to be honest with you, the community has been unbelievable."Other restaurants are staying open too and Locricchio encourages more to follow their lead.This while hospitalizations continue to soar and health officials say it's safest to stay home.Locricchio said the choice is yours.He said the criminal citation means he could have his Liquor License temporarily taken away. He said the District Attorney will determine whether to prosecute. 2149

来源：资阳报