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.

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: The markets are tanking as are the Asian markets and the peso and most likely, European markets when they open. 

tRumpters, don't count your p***ies, until they put out.
[EX A]: Obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: "In his own words, Kushner makes it clear that his actions were innocent...  He plainly states..."

Well then, since he made it clear and plainly stated it...case closed! Oh wait, he plainly stated some things previously that turned out to be lies??? You don't say!

What's amazing about the Alt-Right bizarro world is how obviously wrong and stupid their "reasoning" is. Yet the basket dwellers eagerly eat it all up.
[EX A]:
Non-obscene