Surely that's enough. Why is there a need for "malice"? If someone writes something defamtory about someone and it isn't true, then that should be enough.

Why should libel laws be changed so anyone can make something up and write it, so long as it wasn't with "malice"? If it's a lie then that should be enough for suing someone for writing it.

Have I misunderstood this?

"Parliament has been asked to enact libel law reforms, including recognition of truth as an affirmative defence to a complaint of libel,..."
Using truth as a defence is a radical idea but it just might catch on.

The United Nations actually did something useful for once.

Can you swear on a Tijuana Bible?
In this dour Jones day in which we 
live, insouciant lawyers don't know a gobshite from sugar? An A from Izzard? Shall we call a shovel hat, pick an a pan for every gold digger in spades? Canapes provided with typewriters, in a few eternities, produce all the books in the British Secretum? I'm stale waiting. Even so methinks Judge Eady a weasel. The facts in Funding Evil are well documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts and other official statements. The author's conjectures are self-evident, just as those of British presses. Both truth or conjecture may be defamatory. What is important, is that the free speech of the press and of the individual be defined jus cogens above rank libelous touristas petitioning in moot courts.

Stick it to the man! Er, man...

Can't see anything wrong with this proposition really... unless there's something the Inq aren't telling us because of the secrets act. :)