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.

[EX Q]: Comment: Sounds like McComas had a few priors but the theft was the only prior that left a victim. He might have tried something stupid that angered the cop. Freedom of information absolutely should be available as soon as it is discovered, for anyone to study. I'm not saying the police are corrupt but they do protect each other. What I fear is the concept of "We have conducted a thorough internal investigation and find no wrong doing on the part of the officer"
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Zuma fires competent ministers but retains incompetenet lying ministers such as Dlamini. She should be fired as a minister and taken out of Parliament, as she makes a mockery of the institution. One wonders why she is allowed to act as she does-unilaterally. The other question that should be asked is whether she has paid the court costs and show proof that the payment was out of her own pocket
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: MAYOR BERK-O-WORST YOU ARE  A TYPICAL LIBERAL ANGRY  DISHONEST HATEFUL  DEMOCRAT.
[EX A]:
Non-sexual-explicit