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: YET ANOTHER BARACK OBAMA LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY BY THE THOUGHT CONTROL POLICE. I DIDENT SPEND 30 YEARS MIXING CONCRETE TO LET AMERICA FALL TO THE COMMIES. THE TAXES HERE ARE SO HIGH I CANT EVEN AFFORD A KEYBOARD WITH A WORKING CAPS LOCK. PORTLAND HAS BEEN GOING DOWNHILL FOR YEARS, NO WONDER THE TEA PARTY IS MAKING A COMEBACK. WHATS NEXT FLOURAIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY?

A: No
****
Q: You are correct!

A:
No
****