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.

[Q]: Comment: The author quotes a professor who states  "police reluctance to work with feminist legal groups mirrors a sentiment common to employees of any company.'   Several years ago, I attended a complaint of sexual assault where a woman called to report she had been sexually assaulted at a party.  When I got to her home, she was accompanied by a local Rape Relief representative.  As I spoke to the woman, I was continually interrupted by the Rape Relief rep, to the extent that I asked her to leave the room.  It turned out that the sex was consensual, and that the woman was actually intent on a guilt/revenge thing.  What actually happened is that following a fight with her boyfriend, she stormed off, went to the party, got drunk and had sex.  Upon returning home, she said "look what happened to me," and then reported it as a rape at the urging of her beau.   Unfounded!!!!! 
 I also told the Rape Relief worker to go ahead and complain.  She never did.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Actually, those who fought in the military fought to protect the rights of people like those NFL players, and their supporting owners, who made a peaceful demonstration. That is what you fought for: to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.  You did not fight for the flag or national anthem. You fought for the Constitution. This is what our freedom is about. It's not about marching in lock step with what a fake patriot like DT commands. Our military fought so we can protest dictators like DT.
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: It seems to me that the judge determined that the two people did not break the Elections Act. Before that, criminal charges were stayed presumably because there was no evidence to succeed in prosecuting those either!

If this trial shows anything, it shows the hypocritical actions of the PCs and NDP to push for prosecution for something that they would cheerfully do themselves, as a political ploy - Brown even going so far as to state that Wynne was being prosecuted!

Assuming that Radwanski really wants the legislation to change, the answer is push for the parties to get together and jointly float a Bill to do so. However, politicians of all stripes love their dirty tricks and will posture about the issue much as Radwanski does in this piece but will never do anything to stop it. And in this case, there didn't even seem to be enough evidence to justify the money wasted by the police and the Court system - for that we have to blame Brown and Horwath.
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit