A new bill in Arizona is seeking to impose harsh restrictions on teachers’ conduct, even in their own homes. The bill, SB 1467, states that educators at the state’s public schools and universities can be fined, suspended and ultimately fired if they “engage in speech or conduct that would violate the standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity if that speech or conduct were broadcast on television or radio.”

That does a great deal to limit what can be taught in classrooms. Banning books is certainly not a new practice, but this law would cover far more than controversial books. Here’s a look at some of the key books that would be outlawed in Arizona classrooms:

Worse, as Angus Johnston notes, the bill is so ineptly drafted that it could intrude deeply into teacher’s private lives. SB 1467 doesn’t just ban public speech or conduct, but all speech and conduct. That means public school teachers in Arizona will be forbidden from engaging in any FCC-regulated activities no matter where they are. That means no sex, no going to the bathroom, no cursing and no showering. Ever.

One of the bill’s five sponsors, State Senator Lori Klein (R-AZ), has some experience in the national spotlight. Last summer she raised eyebrows when, during an interview with a reporter from the Arizona Republic, she took out a loaded handgun and pointed it at the reporter’s chest. And in the middle of Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal, Klein dismissed the allegations against Cain because he had “never been anything but a gentlemen” to her, “and I am not an unattractive woman.”

MIAMI, Florida — Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam (R), who previously served in Congress, condemned the harsh anti-immigration laws passed over the past two years in Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, and elsewhere, calling them “devastating” and “wrong” Friday. At a panel discussion of the Hispanic Leadership Network conference here, Putnam said the laws have “been very harmful to their economy” of the states that passed them, and said it was fortunate Florida didn’t follow in their wake.

Responding to a question about whether states should be able to enforce those laws, Putnam replied:

PUTNAM: Florida flirted with it last year, but thank goodness didn’t do it, because it would have been devastating to our state, to our reputation, to our economy. The issue is that under the Constitution, there’s a really narrow bandwidth of options for states to deal with immigration. … [T]hey’re focusing on the enforcement piece, and have had really devastating effects on their economy. Georgia’s got a labor report out, Alabama’s got a labor report out, that has been very harmful to their economy. Because in swinging wildly out of frustration that Washington hasn’t done something, they’ve passed bills that are causing their businesses and their economies great harm. They’ve seen an evacuation of workers. … It has give us a real world, real time example of what happens when you get these state-based polices wrong.

Watch it:

Arizona passed a law in 2010 that bans schools from teaching ethnic studies. Believing such classes promoted “ethnic chauvinism,” former state schools superintendent and the law’s sponsor Tom Horne sought to ban any class that are “designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.” His primary target: the Tucson Unified School District, which offers classes in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies. Insisting that the Mexican-American program taught Latino students “that they are oppressed by white people,” Horne equated the program to the Jim Crow era. “It’s just like the old South, and it’s long past time that we prohibited it,” he said.

Under the law, the state can withhold 10 percent of funding for any school district that refuses to change its courses. Last Friday, the current state schools superintendent John Huppenthal followed through, holding back $15 million a year from Tucson district. Eleven teachers and two students filed suit to prevent the law from taking effect, but on Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima refused to grant the injunction but ruled that the students could challenge the law on First Amendment grounds. Thus, the Tuscon district’s school board suspended the Mexican-American studies department:

The Governing Board of the Tucson Unified School District voted late Tuesday to suspend immediately the Mexican-American studies department, marking a turning point in a yearlong controversy over a new state law banning certain ethnic studies.

“The district shall revise its social studies core curriculum to increase its coverage of Mexican-American history and culture, including a balanced presentation of diverse viewpoints on controversial issues. The end result shall be a single common social studies core sequence through which all high school students are exposed to diverse viewpoints,” the governing board said in a statement.

“The district shall study and bring to the board new measures designed to narrow the achievement gaps for traditionally underserved and economically disadvantaged students,” the board said.

Opponents of the law noted that Huppenthal’s own audit of the program actually praised the classes and found “no observable evidence” that the classes violated the law. Nonetheless, an administrative law judge insisted that the program’s curriculum was teaching Latino history “in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner,” thus spurring Huppenthal’s decision to withhold funds.

School Board member Adelita Grijalva argued that the law was unconstitutional and reflected the “anti-immigrant political climate in the Arizona statehouse.” “This is not a militarized group that want to overthrow the government,” she said, urging the board to preserve the program and appeal the decision. “This is a group that wants their children to understand about about their culture and their role in our American history and our lives.” The final vote was 4 to 1, with Grijalva offering the sole objection.