A trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.
Substantial discussion without accurate semantics is impossible, whereas splitting semantic hairs is substantial discussion in its own right. And the hairsplitting accuracy is necessary because the literal question of good and evil is hardly insignificant.
It is not insignificant but it is not the point of this discussion. The word honest was being used in a restricted context. One might argue that trustworthy might be a better word in this context but the meaning was clear nonetheless.
