Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: Too bad you and your self-righteous, ignorant buddy Selena didn't read her statement or really, much else about the rape. Your affluenza suffering, "innocent" frat boy was stopped in the act--and ran--by and from two men who witnessed the assault. There was nothing consensual about this.  He fingered her unconscious body and did all kinds of  disgusting things to her. He initially admitted to the police that she  was unconscious when he raped her, then took it back after he found out she couldn't remember what happened. And for your information, jerk, it's pretty common for a person to not remember a traumatic event, alcohol or not. You disgust me.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Show a picture of this piece of crap.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Apparantly the editorial board of the Register Guard didn't read Mr. Cooks letter thoroughly enough. And they must not have a solid grasp of the technicals at hand...
Perhaps they are only pretending as if they don't understand the implications, to avoid any meaningful discussion or exposition of what those implications actually are.

By even creating the one key for the one phone, Apple would be inherently crafting a master key which itself is a de facto back door to all Apple phones. There is no way for Apple to decrypt this particular unit without creating a way to decrypt the others as well. 

If a banker does not know the code to the vault, it is not the bankers obligation to blast the vault open as a service to the government. I personally am glad that RG leadership is so open and transparant about their commitment to the Imperial regime. With the RG stepping and fetching for official narratives so dutifully, the hands inside their print media sockpuppet becomes very obvious.
Example Output:
No