A version of this originally appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on February 06, 2015

Poor Jailhouse Joe.

No one was paying attention to incarcerated lawmaker Del. Joe Morrissey this week. So Virginia's only work-release legislator found a way to catapult himself back into the headlines.

The 57-year-old, who leaves jail each morning and returns each night because he's serving a sentence for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, voted against a measure that would prevent inmates from enjoying hard-core porn in their cells.

Looks like incarcerated Virginians really do have a voice in the General Assembly. Sadly, it's not a serious one.

HB1958 is a simple addition to the Code of Virginia that will require state prison authorities to "enforce regulations prohibiting the possession of obscene material... by prisoners incarcerated in state correctional facilities."

Del. Steve Landes of Augusta County, the bill's patron, told me Thursday that prison wardens have been asking for such a policy for years. It's expecially important, he said, to keep porn away from inmates serving time for sexually violent crimes.

Landes claims 37 other states have similar statutes.

Oh, and before we get into a silly debate about the nature of obscene material - as if prisoners will be battling to keep their dog-eared copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" or "Ulysses" - it's pretty clear in the code:

Obscene material "has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex... interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions... sadomasochistic abuse... and does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

If law-abiding Virginians want to consume porn in their own homes, they're free to do so. But those living in cells provided by the long-suffering taxpayers of Virginia don't get to indulge in all of their fetishes.

In other words, if you want to stare at steamy pictures all day, stay out of prison and enjoy.

The bill passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 86 to 13.

By joining a dozen other progressive poodles who were worried sick about the rights and well-being of prisoners deprived of smut, Morrissey found yet another way to add to his press clippings.

In interviews after the vote, Morrissey, insisted that voting with the common-sense majority would have been the easy way out.

"If I wanted to avoid the childish comments and petty jeers or sneers, that would have been an easy vote," Morrissey told The Washington Post. "But it would not have been consistent with my oath."

I hesitate to mention it, but a "yes" vote wouldn't have gotten him an inch of news coverage, either.

Naturally, Morrissey trotted out the predictable I-know-more-than-everyone-else-because-I'm-a-lawyer trope in interviews.

"The reason I voted 'no' is because I don't believe the bill, if challenged in court, would survive a constitutional challenge," he told reporters in Richmond while reminding them he was once a constitutional law professor. "The bill does not describe what obscene materials is."

The Washington Post on Thursday pointed out to readers that Morrissey's career as a constitutional law professor took place in Ireland and Australia while the Virginian was disbarred in the Old Dominion.

Memo to Del. Morrissey: When most folks are looking for legal advice, they don't seek out lawyers - or former law professors - sleeping in a cellblock.

Every time I write about Jailhouse Joe I swear it's going to be the last. But his irony-impaired behavior cries out for comment.

One thing's certain: Morrissey has been a punch line to this General Assembly session.

Perhaps we should savor that.

The embattled legislator is now facing felony forgery and perjury charges. He might not be back next year.