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

[Q]: 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.
[A]: No


[Q]: Peter, according to APOC records, Pete Kelly does not hold a job.  Kelly spends 3 months in Juneau, and the rest of the year unemployed.  This is the opposite of school teachers people like Kelly like to bash.  Teachers work 9 months, and get 3 off.  Kelly, and others like Coghill, "work" 3 months, and get 9 months off.  Kelly and Coghill collect almost $100 grand for their 12 weeks of "work".

Lazy, uneducated people like this must be replaced for Alaska to have any chance.
[A]: No


[Q]: Can you please tell me how republicans, who have never really been racists or sexists, and are not now, can be called racists and sexists by people like you on the left, who actually were the racists and sexists?
[A]:
Yes