Many news organizations opted to use asterisks in the key words like f**k and p***y.
But many outlets actually printed the full words and even displayed them prominently.
Here's how the New York Times justified the use of such coarse language in print and online:
The argument against using the words was driven by a concern that it would be jolting to readers, especially given that the story would be played so prominently on page one, and that there were other ways we could signal what Trump said without relying on the actual vulgar words.
Ultimately we decided that the words themselves were newsworthy, and that omitting them or merely describing them or slyly hinting at them would not have been forthright with our readers.
Did they make the right decision?
By running the full language, were they making a politically motivated decision? Should the potential impact of the words on the audience have been a factor in determining whether to use the full curse words?
Would you have printed the foul language or would you have danced around the issue in order to maintain civility?