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

Example Input: Maybe read the stuff you share because there isn't anything even remotely Nazi like about his quotes. Where are the exhortations to extermination? Or the calls for white supremacy? Sorry you've got nothing, now please stop indulging your emotional bias and actually look at the issues. When you do that it becomes crystal clear that Trump is miles away the better candidate.
Example Output: No

Example 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.
Example Output: No

Example Input: This won't take long. "The FBI conducted a second search on the legislative offices related to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_political_corruption_probe

Do as we say, Not as we do.
http://alaskareport.com/news/z49999_corrupt_bastards.htm

Con Fish; Kodiak?
http://alaskareport.com/BensBribes.pdf
Example Output:
No