---
title: "Assemble the honest-opinion elements from the publication"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assemble-the-honest-opinion-elements-from-the-publication"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A33-PE20261022-13"
practice_area: "Defamation & Media Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Assemble the honest-opinion elements from the publication

> From each passage the lawyer marks, record whether it is put as the defendant's opinion, the opinion of an employee or agent, or the opinion of a commentator.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assemble-the-honest-opinion-elements-from-the-publication  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Defamation & Media Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From each passage the lawyer marks, record whether it is put as the defendant's opinion, the opinion of an employee or agent, or the opinion of a commentator. Record the words said to be opinion rather than fact, the matter of public interest the file relies on, and the material said to support the opinion, including whether that material is set out in the matter, notorious, accessible from a reference, link or other access point included in the matter, or otherwise apparent from the context. Record any fact the file shows about whether the opinion was honestly held at publication. Do not decide that a defence is established. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides which of subsections (1), (2) and (3) is in issue, whether each element is proved, whether the opinion is based on proper material under subsections (5) and (6), and whether the plaintiff proves a defeating fact under subsection (4). Sections 28 and 29, and the definition of substantially true, are applied by the lawyer and are not restated here. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From each passage the lawyer marks, record whether it is put as the defendant's opinion, the opinion of an employee or agent, or the opinion of a commentator. Record the words said to be opinion rather than fact, the matter of public interest the file relies on, and the material said to support the opinion, including whether that material is set out in the matter, notorious, accessible from a reference, link or other access point included in the matter, or otherwise apparent from the context. Record any fact the file shows about whether the opinion was honestly held at publication. Do not decide that a defence is established.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides which of subsections (1), (2) and (3) is in issue, whether each element is proved, whether the opinion is based on proper material under subsections (5) and (6), and whether the plaintiff proves a defeating fact under subsection (4). Sections 28 and 29, and the definition of substantially true, are applied by the lawyer and are not restated here.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Separate the defendant's opinion, an employee or agent's opinion, and a commentator's opinion.
2. For each passage, record opinion rather than fact, the matter of public interest, and the material relied on.
3. Record whether that material is set out, notorious, accessible from a link or other access point, or apparent from the context.
4. Leave honesty at the time of publication, substantial truth, privilege, and sections 28 and 29 to the lawyer.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 31, defences of honest opinion](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s31.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assemble-the-honest-opinion-elements-from-the-publication/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*