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

[Q]: Fuck this asshole and fuck ADN with it's fascist peer reviewed comment censorship.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: 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.
[A]: No


[Q]: Not a dollar for the Port, which at least a majority of the population depends on for food and other commodities, but funding for a project that gradually eliminated the design features that might have preserved the uses that attract people to Anchorage. It is the same old push to run Bragaw through the University area that has been around for decades. It took boards handpicked by Sullivan to get it through the local process. This funding is the kind of thing that used to happen just before the budget went to the printer the night before the vote. A slight improvement over that process I guess, but still unacceptable as public testimony was deemed unnecessary.
[A]:
No