A couple of minor nitpicks. First, in the last sentence of the second paragraph, there is a reference to “men the document[...]” which presumably should be “mean the document[...].”
Second, FWIW, I would suggest inserting a “generally”, or similar qualifier, into the statement that slander is less serious than libel. It can be, and probably usually is, but I wouldn’t say that that is categorically true. I realize this is wordorigins.org and not legal-nitpicking.org, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that legal exactitude is required, but I think adding a “generally” wouldn’t hurt anything, and would eliminate any suggestion that this is an absolute.
Finally, on a somewhat (but not completely, I hope) off topic note, I read in a language log post a little while back (by one Pullum) that in the British legal system “truth” is not a defense to a charge of libel. [Edit: this appears to be wrong: I can’t find any article on LL by Pullum that said this.] This is a bit confusing to me, since, to me, untruthfulness is a necessary element of libel, so a true statement is, by definition, not a libel. This makes me wonder whether there is a fundamental difference in how “libel” is defined by the US and British legal systems, or, alternatively, whether Pullum meant that truth is not necessarily an absolute defense: i.e., it is in some contexts, but not in others.
Again, I realize this isn’t an international law forum, and I bring this up here only because I wonder if “libel” has a slightly different meaning in general use in Britain than it does in the US, or whether the difference only extends to technical legal settings. My sense is that, even in nontechnical use, calling a statement libelous, in the US, necessarily implies that it is untrue, and the BL entry seems consistent with that understanding. Is the same true in Britain?
Also, I don’t mean to suggest that the BL entry should cover all of these nuances: I’m simply using the BL as a leap pad for that question.