Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
This 20 page opinion is a real example of legal hair splitting.  The Supreme Court  acknowledges that libel is actionable per se (without money damage or special harm) if false information is published in a written form (like this site).  They then wander off to the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit opinions and decide that in spite of all that, basically that “two-faced,” “crooked” and “rude.” were not 'provably false' and based on all the facts and circumstances, protected by the 1st Amendment, in the facts of  this case.  This is going to make such lawsuits even more unpredictable than they already were, in my opinion.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
Be sure and ask him what he thinks about ISIS burning 19 women alive because they refused to have sex with ISIS fighters. Remind him that the Holy Kuran specifically forbids using fire to kill.

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
No, I can't. It is puzzling - why trained individuals can make such dumb mistakes. I assume at least part of it is budgetary; which is the reason I have been given for the cockamamie light on 30th Ave east of Hilyard. I would like to hear your comment on the 29th and Amazon light, and see if you can give any logical explanation for the way it works.

Ex Output:

No