Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Where do the following fit concerning the concept of 'freedom of expression'?

In a Texas Academy of Science speech last month, Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated exterminating 90% of the human population via an airborne ebola virus before hundreds of scientists and students. Pianka's speech was ordered kept off the record and cameras were turned away, because "the public was not ready to hear the information presented..."

In 1990 former KKK Grand Dragon and current leader of WAR ("White Aryan Resistance") Tom Metzger was found liable for inciting Oregon skinheads to murder Mulugeta Seraw in Portland. $12.5 million was awarded to his family. Metzger is appealing.

In 1946 Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper 'Der Stuermer', was convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal of inciting hatred against German Jews and executed. So far as is known, he committed no violent act during the Third Reich's hegemony, nor--according to his trial testimony--ever advocated violence in his publication
No

Actually that is exactly the fourth and latest excuse Lisa sent me as to why she was opposed to giving Merrick Garland the traditional hearings and votes for SCOTUS. She said that as Chair of a Committee she had to respect Chairman Grassley's obstructionist refusal to hold Judiciary hearings. Right? Doesn't matter if the Chairman is working contrary to historic Congressional norms in her eyes, all that matters is that he is a Chairman. Sort of like how she supports the ludicrously unqualified Trump simply because he is the Republican nominee. Party over country over and over again for Murkowski.
No

Time for a homeless camp. Let them drink and die all in one spot. It will make it easier to pick up the bodies. If they don't care about their life why should I?
Yes