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

Example Input: The desire for sex starts in the brain. A lobotomy is what is needed.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Editorial corrections are late to the party.  If you write a letter to the RG, be advised that it will get "filtered" and modified thru an editor's opinion even if it doesn't improve the clarity of your opinion.  More often than not, it detracts from the intent of the author, as in this case.  They also omit entire sentences for their own reasons.  It's very condescending and similar to dogs marking fire hydrants.

Some letters might need spiffing for grammar and spelling but wholesale edits and omissions amount to censoring.
Example Output: No

Example Input: "Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. 'Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.' " (From a June 1919 Harvard Law Review article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time”) http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/

If the Little Sisters of the Poor don't themselves believe in using contraception, they have the (religious) freedom to not use it. But when they start trying to impose their beliefs on employees, who might believe otherwise, they are going beyond their own (religious) freedoms and trying to impose their beliefs on others, i.e., to restrict the freedoms of others.

Yes, the lawyers can cite case law and legal doctrine. But none of that changes the basic principle that your freedoms end when you try to extend them to my body.
Example Output:
No