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: It's up to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes, not employers.  I fail to see how an employer becomes responsible for the actions of employees off of the employer's property.  She's got an insane attorney and a heck of a lot of nerve.  I wish the University would let this go to trial, but everyone knows there will be a huge settlement.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Chuckie Schmuck at it again. Another of HiLIARy's playmates can't handle the truth. Born loser

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Hello Scott!

I never said Canada does not run immigration stories.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. 

Find me the Canadian article that claims plainly that Liberal members are obsessed with identity politics and are bending over backward for every minority group and cause.

Find me the Canadian article that claims plainly that leftist activists in Canada go too far in hurling false accusations of bigotry over the idea of limiting immigrants or visa holders.

Find me the Canadian opinion piece that had, blaring above it, a headline along the lines of: 

"Will Liberal Party take long to make Canada less white?"

Look, man, ALL of the above plain, bracing, unvarnished, in-your-face opinion, about immigration and race, is present in today's actual article targeting the United States of America, no holds barred.

I challenge you to find me any similar articles and headlines about Canada, talking about immigration and race in that manner, in the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star or CBC.

A:
Non-sexual-explicit
****