instruction:
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.
question:
Comment: I guess you'd call me a liberal because I tend to favor governmental intervention when "private" behaviors pose serious risks to others.  In this case, however, I swing to the Right.  Assuming that Mr. Jarlstrom's primary "transgression" was to write that he knew something about "engineering" (a generic term), the Board's crusade against him is inane., to say the least.  That would be like me (a retired political scientist) being fined for  illegally "practicing law" because I teach a course in mediation as an effective legal tool.  The case against Mr. Jarlstrom appears to be utter nonsense.  Perhaps one should attack Board members for their lack of proper qualifications.
answer:
Non-obscene


question:
Comment: Susan, that was a wonderful editorial however clearly you haven't been paying attention to the endless stream of propaganda spewing from pot activists.  If you did, you'd know that stoners are simply awesome.  They wouldn't hurt a flea. They never, ever, ever, ever drive while high and if they do, they're a million times safer than regular drivers because they're so gosh darn careful. Those stories you read about the increase in accidents since pot was legalized are wrong.  Legalizing pot eliminated drug crimes.  Those stories about recent pot deals and shootings gone bad are lies planted by anti pot forces. The stories about stoners selling Washington pot in other states in direct violation of the law are wrong too...gosh they would never do something silly like that.

/voting against the legalization of pot was definitely in my self interest
//why do you think they call it dope?
answer:
Non-obscene


question:
Comment: Wente the plagiarist, defending Potter the liar (or is that «rhetorical flourisher» ?). Hilarious. Meanwhile Québec has moved on, and all the outrage is in Canada.
answer:

Non-obscene