LINCOLN, Neb. – Every so often, I’ll hear someone refer to a three-year prison term as a “light punishment,” or complain modern prisons are more like country clubs than correctional facilities. When I hear such things, I immediately suspect two things about the speaker: He or she has never done hard time and likely has never been a member of a country club.

While I can understand why people might believe these things, if you think being in prison is a walk in the park, try this experiment: Lock yourself in a small bathroom 12-16 hours a day for the next two years, eating only terrible food, occasionally strolling around in a courtyard filled with other people who might murder you at any moment, gradually being forgotten by your family and friends, and once you’re done, then tell me modern inmates have it easy.

If you happen to live in Nebraska, for the sake of verisimilitude, make damn sure you don’t take any porn into the bathroom with you for this experiment.

Earlier this month, Scott Frakes, the director of Nebraska’s Department of Correctional Services, sent a letter to the state’s inmates informing that, effective Jan. 1, 2018, pornography will be banned.

“Reform requires us to look at the system, how it operates, and determine where positive changes could be implemented to create a safer, more re-entry-focused environment,” Frakes said in a statement issued this week.

Yes, because nothing prepares inmates for reintroduction to the outside world like denying them access to materials that are abundant, legal and readily available beyond prison walls.

“Pornographic materials are exploitative and create a hostile work environment for staff members,” Frakes wrote in his letter. “These materials do not promote a positive culture and distract inmates and staff from focusing on the vision of safe prisons, transformed lives and safe communities.”

Right. If it weren’t for porn poisoning the minds of these inmates, I’m sure they’d otherwise be beacons of virtue, positivity and respect for others. Heck, if they hadn’t already lost their right to vote, and along with it their eligibility for public office, I’d say any number of these folks, once shielded from porn’s corrupting influence, would make terrific elected officials.

While the new policy is bound to upset some inmates (and inevitably inspire a couple unsuccessful legal challenges from the ranks of the detained), unsurprisingly it is drawing praise from the “family values” crowd.

“Research shows that pornography fuels sex trafficking, child sexual abuse and sexual violence,” said Karen Bowling, the executive director of the Nebraska Family Alliance, who also intoned the familiar refrain that porn represents a “public health crisis.”

“Getting pornography out of prisons will ensure better rehabilitation for inmates and a safer environment for staff in our state prisons,” Bowling added.

So, if we check in a few years’ time, presumably we’ll see a dramatic reduction in the number of assaults on correctional officers by Nebraska inmates, right? And if we ask the COs then, they’ll tell us they feel safer and more respected on the job?

Color me skeptical, but even in countries where porn is illegal outside of prisons, I’m betting the environment inside the prisons is not exactly a wonderland of effective rehabilitation.

In case you’re worried Nebraska’s ban might not go far enough, possibly leaving big loopholes through which an inmate could fantasize inappropriately over the occasional nude-but-not-pornographic image, Nebraska’s DOC has this possibility covered, because the ban extends to “all pornographic magazines, books and drawings.”

As defined by the DOC, pornography is any “depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement” and includes any sexually explicit materials. Under the DOC definition, sexually explicit materials include “those that feature nudity or graphic depictions of sexual acts,” with nudity defined as “the display of genitalia or exposed buttocks or breasts.”

But hey, not all porn is created equal, right? I mean, surely there must be some sexually explicit materials that aren’t necessarily going to lead a convict down the path to (even greater) moral ruin?

Don’t try that line on former prison warden Gene Atherton, because he’s not having any of it.

“I have no First Amendment sympathies for inmates who think they have a right to their pornography,” Atherton said. “No one can make an argument to me that some pornography is better than others. It’s all bad.”

Hear that, Erika Lust? Take it from a former prison warden (because, honestly, who could be more authoritative on the topics of free speech and the hierarchy of psychological needs than a former prison warden?), you’re wasting time with this whole “ethical porn” thing, because no matter how you approach it, porn is bad.

Some wacky (and doubtlessly porn-addicted) folks might argue depriving inmates of outlets for their sexuality would only exacerbate their problems, but if you ask me, “exacerbate” sounds way too much like “masturbate” — and God forbid we allow the incarcerated to do that.

Hmmm. Come to think of it, I’ve heard of people masturbating to some pretty tame materials in my time, so I guess the Nebraska DOC better ban the Sears Catalog, those naughty National Geographic rags and the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism too, just in case.