instruction:
In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.
question:
Comment: What the heck are you even talking about. The Constitution is the Supreme Court's job. To interpret it and uphold it, as written. Not come at it with some kind of activist perspective that Hillary thinks would be good policy. What was she right about?
answer:
Non-sexual-explicit


question:
Comment: You don't seem to be a person I care to spend much time on. 

You do know, don't you, that young Hillary was a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee? 

Mostly undistinguished, but some claim she was unethical even then.

It's nice you can laugh at your own ignorance. Enjoy.
answer:
Non-sexual-explicit


question:
Comment: I dont refer to the people who make up the business who are your neighbors and friends, I refer to the bank execs at the highest levels. You know, like Carrie Tolstedt for example, who pressured employees to open fictitious checking accounts without the knowledge of the person whose name was on the account. Over 2 million of them.  And walked away with $124,000,000 for doing it. There is a reason that you are the only one here defending WF. Because they are not the stellar institution you seem to think they are. Maybe they should put a bronze statue of your hard working upfront ass at WF headquarters.
answer:

Sexual-explicit