This article convinced me to support the Act.
"All they would have had to do is threaten to sue us for publishing malicious falsehoods."
That's blatantly not true. They would have to sue and then YOU would have to refuse to go to arbitration. Whichever party escalates things to the high courts has to pay the costs. This would prevent rich people threatening to bankrupt you with legal fees.
As someone whose grandfather was slandered by the Sun after Hillsborough, I think this sounds like a great idea. No one in my family could ever have afforded to hire a lawyer to take on Murdoch.
The metro.co.uk article you say is the best short read gives a "step-by-step guide to how you can give your opinion" and then proceeds to tell you which answers to give in order to get the second part of the Leveson inquiry shut down. That's not my opinion and neither is a pre-written consultation response written by Free the Press campaign (whose website gives no mention of who funds or runs it).
For someone who claims to be neutral, you seem to be awfully keen for us to support the shutting down of an inquiry which would look into collusion/corruption between journalists and politicians & police officers. I fully understand why the Sun/Mail/Mirror etc don't want an inquiry into what they've been doing, but what does El Reg have to hide?