Video & Transcript Research : 'rejected materials'

Page 1 of 400
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Mar 26th, 2025

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • Chairwoman Gonzalez's bill that we heard on March 12th relating to the creation of artificial sexual material
  • Gonzalez's bill that we heard on March 12th relating to the creation of certain explicit deep fake material
  • situations that they do not have jurisdiction and in most cases, if not all cases, will actually reject
Bills: HB113
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • These materials placed on the rejected list have been determined not to meet TEC or ELPS criteria.
  • to be spent on materials that are on the rejected list.
  • and you add a material to the rejected list, would the school just have to drop?
  • You know, going back to kind of what you've seen with Mr. of the materials you've rejected.
  • Themes you've seen in the rejected materials lanes 14 or so.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • to be spent on materials that are on the rejected list.
  • , those are some rejected instructional materials in 2020. 24.
  • and you add a material to the rejected list, would the school just have to drop?
  • You know, going back to kind of what you've seen with Mr. of the materials you've rejected.
  • Themes you've seen in the rejected materials lanes 14 or so.
MN

Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session

House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee 3/12/25

Children and Families Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • So they must make age-appropriate materials available, but art materials and musical or rhythm instruments
  • So they must make age-appropriate materials available, but art materials and musical or rhythm instruments
  • Working on the draft for next year, where they're going to take the final drafting materials and then
  • <01:36:10.000> This rejected food from semi-truckss.
  • This rejected food from semi-truckss.
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

02/02/2026 - House Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • tool that the people of Arizona have to protect their livelihoods and quality of life and should be rejected
Summary: The House Committee on Land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs considered several measures related to foreign ownership of land, historic preservation administration, and limits on the Attorney General’s nuisance authority. HCM 2005, urging Congress to study restrictions on property ownership by foreign governments operating under communism or authoritarianism, was amended unsuccessfully and then passed on a 5-3 do-pass recommendation. HB 2171, which would prohibit sales or leases of Arizona real property to persons acting on behalf of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea and assign enforcement duties to state and county officials, also passed 5-3. HB 2790, which would restructure the State Historic Preservation Office’s reporting and budget process and provide a $1 million appropriation, drew testimony from Arizona State Parks and Trails and the Arizona Preservation Foundation; supporters said it would improve autonomy and efficiency, while critics warned it could create administrative conflicts and affect federal funding. It passed 5-3 after discussion of possible clarifying amendments. The committee then took up three similar bills aimed at curbing the Attorney General’s use of public nuisance actions. HB 2168 would require county board of supervisors approval before the AG could bring such an action in Superior Court; supporters argued it would add local control and protect rural industries, while opponents said it would block needed enforcement and give local officials veto power over statewide concerns. HB 2169 would make the AG liable for defamation per se if a nuisance action is filed without a reasonable basis and publicized; supporters framed it as accountability, while opponents said it would chill enforcement and transparency. HB 2167 would impose damages, attorney fees, lost profits, and treble penalties on the AG for unsuccessful nuisance actions; supporters said it would deter overreach, while opponents said it would intimidate the office and shield powerful corporations. All three bills passed on 5-3 do-pass votes.