Efforts to reinstitute a law that once shielded news reporters and other journalists from revealing their anonymous sources and unpublished notes have been restarted in both the state House and Senate.

Three bills reinstating at least some form of the so-called "shield law" have been introduced so far, but one of them has disappointed media advocates.

House Bill 295 and Senate Bill 496, introduced by Rep. Gregg Takayama (D, Pearl City-Waimalu-Pacific Palisades) and Sen. Laura Thielen (D, Hawaii Kai-Waimanalo-Kailua), respectively, put back the same language that was in place from 2008 to 2013.

An attempt to extend the sunset date on the law was shot down during the waning days of the 2013 legislative session.

However, House Bill 17, introduced by House Majority Leader Scott Saiki (D, Downtown-Kakaako-McCully), adds language that allows the shield to be lifted in a wide variety of circumstances that media advocates contend renders the measure almost meaningless.

Former reporter and current University of Hawaii journalism professor Gerald Kato said the added language in the bill "severely limits the scope of the privilege."

The measure is so onerous that "it opens up all kinds of potential for mischief against journalists," Kato said. "My feeling is we’re probably better off without a law instead of having a law that, in effect, limits the rights of journalists."

The previous shield law said the government cannot compel a journalist to reveal any anonymous source or unpublished materials that have been gathered for a news story or any other "communication to the public." The protection applies to any journalist working for any print, television, radio or digital media outlet in Hawaii.

That protection is not absolute, however. Under the previous shield law, the news gatherers may be forced to give up the sources or information in cases where there is probable cause that the person seeking the privilege has committed, is committing or will commit a crime. The privilege is also waived, for instance, when the person claiming the privilege is witness to a crime.

A final area where the previous shield law would not apply is if there is substantial evidence that the source or information sought for disclosure is material to the investigation, prosecution or defense of a felony, or a civil action involving defamation.

Kato and media attorney Jeffrey Portnoy said they have no problem with those exceptions spelled out in the previous shield law.

What they object to is the additional language in Saiki’s bill that would also waive protection when the source or information sought to be disclosed is material to a "potential felony, or serious crime involving unlawful injury to persons or animals" as well as any civil action, not just those involving defamation.

"The initial statute that (was allowed to sunset) provided significantly more protection for journalists than Rep. Saiki’s bill," Portnoy said. Saiki’s draft "permits parties who seek to obtain information the ability to seek that information in a much broader variety of dispute."

In particular, the bill would allow for the shield law to be inapplicable if there is substantial evidence that the information or source is material in any civil action.

"The House bill also significantly enlarges those criminal cases in which journalists can be compelled to provide information," Portnoy said.

He said he sees no reason why the previous shield law should not be reinstated.

"For five years, it worked perfectly," he said. "Why tamper with it at all? In my view, having no bill is better than a watered-down version of what we had before."

Saiki said the additional language he inserted arose from a recommendation by a panel of attorneys and judges, convened by the Judiciary.

But Kato said those who came up with the language misinterpreted what the court said.

Saiki said lawmakers can take a look at those concerns.

"We can always reassess our position and remove it if it does, in fact, render the shield law inadequate," he said. "We can always remove it."

Thielen said the chances of a shield law bill passing this year are improved since the Senate’s staunchest opponent to the proposal, former Judiciary Chairman Clayton Hee, is no longer at the Legislature.

Hee maintained the former shield law was too broad and fostered irresponsible journalism. When advocates pushed to have the shield law permanent, Hee sought restrictions to the law including removing bloggers and other free online media from any protection.

With the House and Senate in disagreement, the bill died and the law expired.