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: "Arson in the second degree 
164.315 
 A person commits the crime of arson in the second degree if:

By knowingly engaging in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the person causes fire or causes an explosion that damages ...Any property of another and the damages to the property exceed $750"

I think we need to add 'hash oil manufacturing' to this Oregon statute.   Too many stoned idiots are out there playing  chemist.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Ambrose99, It is impossible to deal with somebody who is a gangster and who lives in an alternate reality. The only cure is to put him in a straight jacket, but now you will need an awful lot of them.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: This is yet another example of the mindless MSM criticizing Trump's accurate words rather than NK's completely unacceptable provocations.

Although anyone who relies upon the DP would not know it, NK is threatening to send 4 missiles to land within 30 kms of Guam around 15 August.

NK's threat is a clear act of war and Trump is quite right to put the world on notice that NK will be obliterated if they carry out their threat.

Even the PRC has said that they will remain neutral if Kim attacks Guam;  Russia would probably do the same.

NK might have time to cause WMD devastation in Australia, Japan, the RoK, and the US before they are destroyed.  There could be massive casualties.

Trump is simply telling it like it is:  the Allies can no longer tolerate the existential threat from a madman with WMDs.

Other presidents have just kicked the NK can down the road.  President Trump will definitely terminate Kim if NK attacks the Allies.

Sargent/DP are guilty of journalistic malpractice.

A:
Non-sexual-explicit
****