Speaking at an event to mark the launch of his private members bill, which had its first reading in parliament in May, Lester (pictured left) said he sought to "strike a balance between the innocent facilitator and someone who adopts a defamatory statement" online.
The bill has been developed over the past eight months, partly encouraged by the release of English PEN's report on libel reform and its reform campaign with Index on Censorship and Sense about Science. All three groups have had the chance to share their views with the bill's architects during its creation.
Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said their report illustrated the support behind reform.
"When Lord Lester saw the groundswell we got behind our campaign, he realised there was enough momentum," he said to Journalism.co.uk. "Since then we have taken an advisory role and fed our views to those involved. But it is very much his bill."
Several of the groups' campaign recommendations have been included, such as expanding the definition of fair comment and justification, renamed as 'honest opinion' and 'truth', to make them more "user-friendly". The Reynolds Defence has also been updated by the removal of "unnecessary" factors, such as the 'Right of Reply'.
But other proposals by the campaigners have not been fully included, such as the reversal of the burden of truth or any matters relating to costs or damages.
"I was very keen to have a bill that is a fair balance between the right to free speech and the right to a good reputation," Lester said.
"That's why I didn't do what some of you wanted, to reverse the burden of proof and make libel like other civil wrongs. Instead I have created some hurdles for claimants, in that they now have to establish some significant harm, and for corporate bodies who have to prove actual or likely serious financial loss."
He added: "One of the main ideas is not to create a set of rigid rules but a framework of principles. In some of the provisions we have not made much change but have simply sought to clarify it and to make it more user-friendly."
Another point of contention was the decision to use trial by jury only in exceptional cases.
"The reason for that is that in practice it is much harder to settle cases at an early stage if the claimants' lawyers are always holding out for a jury. Without doing that we couldn't have the bill," Lester said.
He admitted that he was most passionate about protecting freedom of speech, but argued that a balanced bill was essential.
"The truth is I am more keen on free speech than reputation, but we have to recognise our need to have a law to protect both. I don’t want it to be shot down because it breaches the right to reputation," he said.
The bill also specifically addresses online defamation cases.
"If you have libel on the internet it can be worldwide and liable in 160 countries in the world so it was important to think of ways to cut down liability in any way," Lester said.
It was explained that online publishers would fall into one of three categories, either as the author or editor with full liability, facilitator with no control over flow of information, or intermediary who falls between these two categories.
His bill also introduces the single publication rule, where an innocent facilitator would only be liable if they have been made aware of a defamatory statement and not removed it within 14 days.
Chilling effect
But Lord Lester said his main hope was that the bill would tackle the "chilling effect", when smaller publishers or organisations hold back stories in the fear they may lead to costly court cases.
"My main concern is with the chilling effect, where NGOs, regional newspapers and other more vulnerable publishers fear that they may get caught up in costly libel procedures. That is the main thing the bill is concerned with, to reduce or try to eliminate an unnecessary chilling effect," he told Journalism.co.uk.
The bill will have its second reading at 10:00am on Friday 9 July in the House of Lords.
"I hope there will be a lot of speakers on all sides," Lester said. "The bill can no doubt be improved and there needs to be genuine, serious, sustained public consultation.
He added: "This is one of the most important things I have ever done and would welcome the views of anyone who wants to suggest improvements to what I have done."
He said this could be achieved either through a special parliamentary committee - his preference - or by his own cancellation of the bill in the second reading, giving the government a chance to write its own. Lester added that he hopes the law will be changed within this current parliamentary session.
"I want to make sure that this first opportunity that parliament has to make a comprehensive reform of libel law is not rushed and we get the best law we can, for the guidance of judges, lawyers, publishers, journalists, citizens, the public," he told Journalism.co.uk.
"This is a law made to pass," he added.
Read the bill in full here.....
Hear Lord Lester outline the main impact the bill would have on journalists below:
Listen below for the full interview with Jonathan Heawood:
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
