Transcript for Gawker Employees Testify in Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Trial
Now to the latest in hulk hogan's $100 million legal battle with the website Gawker. The site's editors testifying about their decision to post the sex tape and stunning the courtroom in the process. ABC's Linzie Janis has the story. Reporter: Hulk hogan's personal lawyer testifying he and his client whose real name is terry bollea did this interview with TMZ when the sex tape was just a rumor. First of all, welcome. Yeah, first of all there were several brunettes, okay. Reporter: David Houston telling the jury all joking aside, he and the hulkster had a very clear agenda. I mean the whole purpose was to get the word out rut knock out anyone who might be tempted to publish it. In this is notice. If anybody goes forward with this thing we'll find them and prosecute them. Reporter: Five months later in October 2012 gawker.com did what no other media outlet dared. The man behind the post labeled nsfw, not safe for work, A.J. Di la lairo saying he couldn't wait to publish it. I enjoyed watching the video. I found it very amusing. Reporter: Daulerio saying he didn't call hogan or clem before putting it up on the site. So it's fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not that played no part in your decision to publish it. Reporter: Lawyers asking if there's any celebrity sex tape he wouldn't consider newsworthy. If they were a child. What age? 4. Reporter: But Gawker calling the outrageous remark flip saying only it was made after he said he wouldn't post the tape of a child. Nick Denton was asked whether posting it would be distressing to hogan. Uh, no, I didn't and why not in because my job is to disseminate information and that's our social function. Reporter: Team hogan also puts a college professor on the stand who told the jury that Gawker's post violated nearly every principle of ethical journalism but Gawker prides itself on having different journalistic standards and it has not even begun to present its case in court. Thanks. Let's talk about it with Dan Abrams and Nancy grace, host of "Nancy grace" on HLN. Pretty startling moment on where Gawker would draw the line. Yes, it was very startling and that certainly is putting perfume on the pig to say that your line, your goal standard is that you would not post a sex tape of a child under 4. Gawker's argument is that that was being flip and sarcastic but even being flip and sarcastic is not going to go down well with that jury and it lifts the veil on the mentality at Gawker when they put out the hulk hogan sex tape. Right, and, Dan, that can't win them any friends but underneath they have a relatively bad day. They were taking depositions giving them before. Both these will end up testifying in the case where they'll have more time to explain things. Joking around. Whatever, but, look, the real risk for Gawker here is a legal matter. Is it these jurors put Gawker on trial in general as opposed to focusing on the very specific question here about this tape, this context, this question. And if I'm Gawker, the one thing I'm really worried about is that the jurors become so angry at what Gawker does that they simply want to punish them and I'm sure that's what their lawyers are -- I would not put them back on the stand. They may do it, Dan. You may be right about that but I wouldn't put those two on the stand. They're radioactive and imagine what would happen on cross-examination. You know what, speaking of the testimony in court I thought hulk hogan did a great job. It's not hulk hogan that you are used to seeing in the ring with the WWE. This is the private hulling. Bollea and came across as measured and calm and not what people would have expected. I thought hulk hogan was okay. I didn't think he was great. I think this whole distinction between I get to pick when I'm hulk hogan versus when I'm terry bollea is not a particular -- You think Gawker not going on the stand is an option. No, no question nick Denton will take the witness stand in this case. I mean he has to take the stand. You can't let them put clips of your deposition in without providing context. Nick is a much more important witness in the context of this case than terry bollea/hulk hogan meaning hulk hogan's testimony, yes, it's relevant. Yes, it's important but the most important question in this case is, why did Gawker do what it did? What were they thinking? What was the reasoning behind -- Dan, I think that what you're saying legally is absolutely correct, because this case is against them and you've got to get their reasoning but in my mind when I am speaking to a jury, what's going to matter is, how did this affect hulk hogan? Is he believable? Was he damaged I found it to be sincere. That assumes liability and we're already to damage. That was great, guys. Thanks very much.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.