For the second time in two years, lawmakers have introduced a controversial bill that would provide qualified protection to journalists facing federal subpoenas to disclose their sources.

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, revealed on Wednesday by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN), returns at the beckoning of journalists who have long criticized the federal government for the absence of any source protections. Under current law, reporters are at the mercy of federal grand juries and civil proceedings; when formally requested, they must share their evidence or risk being held in contempt of court. The proposed law, by contrast, would mimic similar state "shield laws" and create a federal "reporter's privilege, with exceptions for national security, terrorism, the prevention of bodily harm, and eyewitness testimony from a crime scene," according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The new bill, however, is not without its vocal opposition.

Still at issue in the perennial shield law debate is who, exactly, qualifies as a "journalist." According to the new bill, which is identical to the previous Free Flow of Information Act, the phrase "covered persons" includes anyone "who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain..." That definition, lawyers indicated last year, does not include bloggers, many of whom only casually contribute content to their communities or frequently do so without "substantial" -- if any -- pay.

Regardless of their professional or profit motives, bloggers have faced extensive legal challenges over the past two years -- albeit at the state level where some shield protections already exist. In Virginia, for example, blogger Kathleen Seidal was served a state subpoena in 2008 as part of a personal injury lawsuit, one that required her to submit documents that included traffic data. Elsewhere, in Tennessee, local blogger Thaddeus Matthews fought Memphis lawyers over whether they could subpoena him for refusing to reveal his source in an ongoing police investigation. And in California, 24-year-old Josh Wolf was jailed for refusing to relinquish tapes identifying lawbreaking protesters at a Group of 8 summit in 2006. He spent 228 days behind bars.

Yet, not everyone agrees these state squabbles justify the addition of a "blogger provision" in the federal shield law. Despite the organization's previous support for bloggers fighting federal and state subpoenas, the Society of Professional Journalists issued a press release on Wednesday that included no mention of such a revision. "Today, we are asking you to join the fight to improve and protect journalism. Please contact your representative and voice your support for this measure that is essential to upholding a free and independent press," wrote James Aeikins, SPJ's president.

But bloggers' vociferous criticisms have not gone unheard: In 2007, the Senate anticipated this debate over who constitutes a "journalist" and rewrote its version of the bill to eliminate the "substantial portion/gain" condition. However, the chamber never voted on the bill; it died at the end of the previous Congressional session and has only been reintroduced in the House.

Since then, President Barack Obama has expressed vague interest in a federal shield law, a clear departure from his predecessor, who threatened to veto any such law in 2008. Still, it remains unclear whether President Obama supports the House bill in its present state -- and more importantly, whether House members have any interest in advancing it to the president's desk this year.