宜宾祛眼袋哪家专业宜宾脸部脱毛术,宜宾丰胸哪家好,宜宾抽脂双眼皮恢复过程图,宜宾双眼皮整形方法,宜宾开双眼皮医院那家比较好,宜宾眼部填充哪做的好,宜宾自体丰胸大概多少钱

SALT LAKE CITY — Some pornographic websites are beginning to comply with a new Utah law requiring that warning labels be attached to adult-oriented materials.At least three major porn sites — Pornhub, XTube and RedTube — have begun attaching an opt-in notification for visitors from Utah, which says that the state believes pornographic materials can be harmful if viewed by minors."It shows for a lot of businesses, they're more concerned about their pocketbook than they are about being prosecuted," said Rep. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, who sponsored the bill earlier this year.Brammer's bill got national attention, and he faced pushback and threats of lawsuits from the adult entertainment industry when it debuted earlier this year. XHamster, another adult website, even trolled the bill by posting a parody warning on its site for Utah viewers to see.Brammer watered down the original bill, and it passed the legislature. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, allowed it to go into law without his signature.The law allows people to bring a private civil action in court against a site for displaying "obscene" materials, but it would require someone to go to court and have something declared "obscene."A trade group representing the porn industry said it advises websites not to comply with the new law, believing it is still unconstitutional."No matter the message, the First Amendment restricts the government's ability to compel speech. Individual companies may choose to comply because it's easier than facing lawsuits or fines. We've never advised our members to comply, and don't believe this is being done in any widespread manner, but respect that a business may make decisions that limit potential liability," Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, said in an email. "As with similar, previous legislation in Utah, we'll eventually see the law challenged and overturned, and at no small expense to the Utah taxpayer. That's unfortunate, because that money and energy could be spent educating people about actually effective methods of protection, like parental filters."An email sent to Pornhub requesting comment on why it began posting warning labels was not immediately returned.While no websites have challenged the law in court, Brammer believes it will hold up."So far, it's been a lot of talk. I don't think that they will, if they do bring a legal challenge, I don't think they'll be able to succeed on that," Brammer said. "We have a difference of opinion on that. They haven't felt confident enough yet to bring a legal challenge and most of the companies, rather than make the challenge and spend the money on that, they're complying."Brammer said he ultimately would like to expand the legislation to allow for people to sue an adult website, even if they don't know who owns it.But he said he was not planning to bring that forward in the 2021 legislative session that begins in January. Other states have expressed interest in running similar legislation, he said.Brammer said the warning label law has already alerted parents when their child was re-directed to an adult site, and it's educated them about parental filters.He insisted his bill did not block adults from viewing pornography, just minors."If that's where they want to go, they're going to get there. And I'm not trying to stop that," he said. "But I'm giving them a chance if that's not where they want to go."This story was originally published by Ben Winslow on KSTU in Salt Lake City. 3510

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A Catholic priest who oversees churches in four California counties, including San Diego, is suing Gov. Gavin Newsom and 19 other state, county and municipal officials, alleging COVID-19 restrictions on places of worship are unconstitutional.Father Trevor Burfitt contends in his court papers that public health guidelines restricting worship activities are ``no longer warranted'' and ``causing far more harm than good.''Among the restrictions contested by Burfitt are bans on indoor worship, occupancy restrictions, social distancing requirements -- which ``precludes proper conduct of Catholic worship'' -- and face covering mandates, which ``not only radically interferes with Catholic worship in numerous ways but irrationally threatens individual health...,'' according to his 77-page complaint filed Sept. 29 in Kern County Superior Court.RELATED: In-Depth: Answering legal liability questions about coronavirusDefendants named in the suit include Newsom, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, San Diego County Public Health Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore and San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit. The suit also names officials in Los Angeles, Kern and San Bernardino counties, where Burfitt also oversees mission churches. Burfitt is the prior of Saint John Bosco Mission in San Diego, according to the complaint.Since the pandemic began, similar lawsuits have been filed by religious leaders and institutions across the state, including South Bay United. Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, which challenged the state's restrictions on church attendance in a case that went before the Supreme Court in May and was rejected 5-4.Like many of the other lawsuits, Burfitt challenges places of worship's status as ``non-essential'' and alleges Newsom has arbitrarily deemed other businesses and industries as critical.Paul Jonna, one of Burfitt's attorneys, said in a statement, ``It is now beyond reasonable dispute that, absent judicial intervention, Governor Newsom intends to continue indefinitely a massive and baseless suspension of the constitutional rights of Father Burfitt and nearly 40 million other residents of the state of California.``He continues to levy strict limits or outright prohibitions on public and private worship activities, which continue to be designated as `nonessential,' while liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and the Hollywood movie industry are allowed to operate unhindered. California's residents are apparently expected to live their lives behind makeshift `face coverings' while maintaining an arbitrary distance of six feet from everyone they encounter outside their homes. And to complete Newsom's despotic mandates, anyone who declines to obey faces criminal and civil penalties. This is unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the rights guaranteed by California's constitution.'' 2897

SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND, Calif. (KGTV) -- The two soldiers killed in an aircraft accident on San Clemente Island have been identified, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command said Saturday.According to the news release, 33-year-old Staff Sgt. Vincent P. Marketta of New Jersey and 22-year-old Sgt. Taylor M. Shelton of San Bernardino died on August 27 during an aviation training mishap.Marketta enlisted in the Army in 2011 as a 15T UH-60 Black Hawk Repairer and was assigned to the 160th Special Operations Regiment. While assigned to the unit, Marketta deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He also deployed multiple times to Iraq for Operation Inherent Resolve, according to the Army.Shelton enlisted in the Army in 2016 also as a 15T UH-60 Black Hawk Repairer and was assigned to the same unit as Marketta. During his service, Shelton deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.“The loss of Staff Sgt. Marketta and Sgt. Shelton has left a scar in this Regiment that will never completely heal,” said Col. Andrew R. Graham, commander of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne).“Their level of dedication to the 160th SOAR (A) and their exemplary service in the Army is the embodiment of what it means to be a Night Stalker and a Soldier. Our priority now is to ensure the Families of our fallen warriors receive our complete support as we work through this tragedy together. We ask that you keep Staff Sgt. Marketta, Sgt. Shelton, their Families and fellow Night Stalkers in your thoughts and prayers.”The incident comes just weeks after nine servicemembers, eight Marines and one sailor, were killed in an amphibious assault vehicle training accident off the coast of San Clemente Island. 1766

San Diegans living in their cars and recreational vehicles rallied Wednesday against a new city law that places steep restrictions on where they can stay.The City Council passed the emergency restriction in May after residents complained about safety concerns with people living in their cars.The law bans people from living in their vehicles near homes or schools, and blocks them from staying almost everywhere in the city between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m."Homeless could by anybody, it doesn't mean we're criminals," said Robert Ewing, who lives in his R.V. "Just because we ain't got no place to stay. Times are hard."The law went into effect in June, about the same time the city opened a new safe parking lot for R.V's next to SDCCU Stadium in Mission Valley. The lot, however, has largely gone unused. People who live in their vehicles describe concerns over gas mileage, location and a rule requiring them to be out by 7 a.m.Meanwhile, Disability Rights California is challenging the ordinance in court. A spokeswoman for the mayor says the city is committed to providing individuals living out of their vehicles a safe place to park at night, while connecting them to supportive services.At the same time, she says the city is committed to keeping its neighborhoods clean and safe. 1291

SAN DIEGO — An Uber driver escaped from his car after it plunged into San Diego Bay Thursday night.San Diego Harbor Police said the incident occurred at around 10:30 p.m. local time. The driver was on his way to pick up a customer on Harbor Island when he arrived at a T-intersection at a high rate of speed, causing him to drive off the road and into the water. 375