TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Comment: Right you are... he ended up not being charged, let alone convicted for Child Pornography. I stand corrected.

However - the first part of my comment stands. Had he engaged in an illegal discussion of any other flavor, the 15 year old would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The 15 year old in this case is not guilty of anything, but to pretend that in this very case she is a victim of a two-sided conversation when in any other case she would, indeed, be guilty for engaging in a conversation of an illegal nature, is nothing short of bizarre. This hypocrisy is worse than AW's creepiness.

I find this particular case nothing short of delicious, as it was AW who co-sponsored the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act,” a bill to require sex offenders to register their email addresses and instant-messaging accounts. The prosecutors said Mr. Weiner had, in public remarks, said “the internet is the predator’s venue of choice today.” 

Tru dat!

SOLUTION: Sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: One thing for sure - it's going to be extremely funny watching the BC NDP suck and blow at the same time on this one.

SOLUTION: Sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: What pompous rubbish. 

The referendum was merely about the decision to invoke article 50 - it was not about giving a blank cheque to cabinet to negotiate the particular conditions of Brexit. 

 In accordance with British constitutional convention, specifically that of parliamentary sovereignty, ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in the UK was not subject to approval by referendum.

The conditions of entry into the EU were thus voted and sanctioned by Parliament. The conditions of exit must be similarly sanctioned.

SOLUTION:
Non-sexual-explicit