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

[EX Q]: Political Correctness has ceased to have any altruism and has now run so far off the tracks that we  literally can't use certain words for fear that some obvious "Cunt" will spend time... not time protesting the actual act of colonialism but the literal use of the word colonialism.

What a fucking joke liberalism has become that these people who own and built a business, working hard to make a real tangible thing, exist in a world where "words" from "Cunts" can  actually destroy it all! 

Count me in for dinner tonight!
[EX A]: Yes

[EX 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.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Little known fact: George Lucas, the Steve Jobs of filmmaking, created the Star Wars movies only as a vehicle for driving merchandise sales. You'd have to be part Ferengi (i.e., tacky, devious, and profit-driven) not to see that!
[EX A]:
No