Act 210, the so-called journalists’ shield law, protects reporters and their sources of information from subpoenas in certain criminal and civil proceedings. The act is similar to protections provided in 48 other states and the District of Columbia. It took effect in 2008, but unless the Legislature acts, it will expire at the end of June.

This valuable protection does more than provide a special privilege for the news media. It allows people to share information with journalists without fear that a government prosecutor will demand to see it. It protects a journalist’s ability to go beyond canned press releases to investigate stories that powerful government officials or private special interests would prefer to keep secret. It ensures the news media’s freedom and independence. It gives the public a powerful tool for change.

In other words, it’s the sort of protection that certain politicians and government officials apparently don’t like. Among them are the Abercrombie administration and state Sen. Clayton Hee, who on Wednesday demonstrated why strong shield laws are necessary.

Hee, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee, pushed through amendments to House Bill 622, the vehicle that would make the shield law permanent. The amendments slashed whole sections out of the original law, replacing them with language that eviscerates the law’s most essential protections. As sometimes happens in legislative committees, Hee described the changes but did not provide advance copies of the amended bill. Members voted for the amendments without reading them.

That’s unfortunate. Hee, following recommendations of the state attorney general, called his amendments a "balanced approach." They are nothing of the sort.

First, HB 622, HD1, SD1 removes protections for just about any unpublished information a journalist gathers. Anyone who wants to file a civil suit can demand a journalist’s work product for discovery purposes. A prosecutor investigating virtually any alleged crime can subpoena just about anything a journalist collects in reporting a story. The chilling effect is obvious: An investigative journalist could no longer guarantee confidentiality of sources, or even gather material for a sensitive story, without assuming that some or all of it could be confiscated by the government or a private party. In effect, the journalist could be forced into becoming an arm of the law — an obvious restraint of the independence of the press.

But that’s not all. The amendments also would eliminate protections for journalists who don’t work for traditional media such as newspapers, television or wire services.

It should be obvious to any consumer of news that the media landscape is rapidly changing. Much of the work by legitimate journalists is produced on "non-traditional" Internet platforms, including Politico, Pro-Publica, Slate, and here at home, Civil Beat and Hawaii Reporter. Independent journalists and documentary filmmakers, using standard journalistic practices, also produce important work in the public interest.

In fact, the one — and only — time Act 210 was invoked in court was on behalf of a Native Hawaiian documentary filmmaker, Keoni Alvarez. A court found that the law protected Alvarez’s unpublished materials from a subpoena by a Kauai landowner, who wanted to use the materials in a lawsuit against protesters objecting to the construction of his house on land containing Native Hawaiian iwi. If Hee had his way, Alvarez would have been defenseless and his sources exposed.

Act 210 doesn’t give the media a free ride. There are exceptions that apply to felonies and civil suits involving defamation. The act restricts the scope of the protection by providing a sensible way to establish if the individual seeking protection is a legitimate journalist. It does not apply to random bloggers or opportunists trying to avoid a subpoena. Not a single negative impact from the act has been documented in the five years it has been in effect.

And unlike Hee’s amended version, Act 210 was not created hastily and out of public view. The act was the product of long negotiations among key stakeholders, including the media, experts in media law, the attorney general under the Lingle administration and the state Judiciary. The Supreme Court’s Standing Committee on Evidence carefully reviewed the act — and in December 2011 recommended that the act, as written, be codified under Chapter 621. Industry experts consider Act 210 to be one of the best and most progressive in the country.

The amendments to HB 622 fail in every important respect. They create so many exceptions through vaguely worded loopholes as to make the shield law useless. And by enshrining these exceptions in statute, they could actually reduce the independence of the press.

The Legislature in conference committee should reject SD1, restore Act 210 to its original form and make it permanent.