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.

Comment: Wow! There were two fake news ads on the site as a logged in...see it's about the money. Faux News makes money by ginning up the adrenal glands of viewers...the Jerry Springer of broadcasts. And even the name is fake 'cause it ain't news. When Drudge Report posts something fake and then Faux picks it up, and 'reporters' parrot as it now it's news? This is stupid journalism...like reporting each gush from the Twit in Chief as if this was news...it's at best a yawn. Of course journalism that uses the tweets by the twit to show how grossly unqualified just adds fuel...still not news. Journalism at it's best seeking the truth -- this is why we need intelligent opinions as the context is complex. But not all beliefs are news. Not all opinions deserve an airing. We need to shame those who foment fear and terror as what they are, terrorist recruiters. The nominee for national security advisor is one, as is his son. They almost caused the death of innocent people. Fake news undermines America.
Non-sexual-explicit

Comment: And I can give you a whole history down through the centuries with popes, cardinals, bishops and priests who had sex with women, girls, and boys----they didn't care which. 
 

Because Pope Sixtus IV [1471-84] collected church tax on prostitutes and charged priests for keeping mistresses, it's believed that this was what increased the clerical homosexuality---not being homosexual.
Sexual-explicit

Comment: They're ugly white nazis. What's more to know? Maybe having their names out there will prevent the next mosque shooting.

Non-sexual-explicit