In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Jones has no "style", just rant.

If Coulter modified her style, she'd be taken more seriously by what some would call Mainstream people presumably those giving "funnies" here--and with a good degree of validity. She makes some great observations about her country, its policies and people. Trouble is, she does it with a sledge-hammer.

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: I'm for it.  What I'm against are those darn push-up bras.  That's false advertising.

Output: Obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Consider this analogy. Your daughter and her children are kidnapped by a notorious gang in Mississauga. A ransom is demanded. Does the government prohibit you from negotiating with that gang for the release of your family members? No, of course not. They'll eagerly handle the negotiations for you, or coach you every step of the way. 

You're not considered a criminal for negotiating with or paying a home-grown gang of thugs, even though such criminals pose a far greater risk to Canadians than some remote terrorist group. But should a raggedy group of militants in the mountains of Afghanistan get their hands on your family members, you are liable to a prison term of 14 years for negotiating with them and paying for your family's release.

The government's position is cruel and hypocritical. It's not a policy, it's an ideology. "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" Except, of course, when they do it to get government employees released.


Output: Non-obscene