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.

Comment: I'd like to share a comment written in response to the article "Clarity beyond clericalism: Bishop Long at the Royal Commission" published in the Australian on-line journal "Eureka Street." The article elicited this response from one reader, who referred to Catholic schools:

"If there were a significant risk of abuse, then enrolments would have fallen off dramatically. They haven't... so I conclude this is a witch-hunt...and not a realistic assessment of any widespread problem."

To describe Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse as an unrealistic "witch-hunt" addressing a manufactured problem sounds bizarre to me.  However, this commentator is not alone; there are others.

Those of us who believe Church reform is sine qua non need to be talking to these folks.  Conversation can be a slow process, but if there is no meeting of minds, no willingness to listen, we're dead in the water.
Non-obscene

Comment: So you're saying the Chuch leaders should publicly criticize Bill Clinton, Jessie Jackson, Bill Cosby, Al Gore, Democratic supporter Harvey Weinstein, Democrat Kevin Spacey, etc. for their sexual violence?

How about Hillary the enabler?
Non-obscene

Comment: where is pie chart section of people who don't give a shit

Obscene