In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: 1.  The same restrictions we all have when it comes to what we say publicly.  They are not allowed to slander or libel anyone, the same as us, but otherwise are free to say whatever is on their mind.
2.  Why should anyone be punished for something they said, assuming it was neither slanderous or libelous?  People who want other people punished for something they said have absolutely no concept of what "free speech" means.
3.  I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  Contrary to the practices of either party, I believe the rule of law needs to be upheld.  Both Republicans and Democrats alike are corrupt to the core, and both do this nation far more harm than good.

Remember, the First Amendment does not exist to protect speech with which we all agree.  The First Amendment exists to protect the speech with which we disagree.  Clearly this is a concept that Democrats are unable to grasp.

Output: Non-threat


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Vancouver was thinking it was a good idea to pass a law mandating snow tires-  but only if there was snow on the ground? 

How on earth was that law going to be enforced? Who was going to enforce it? How were people going to comply? Check the weather then break out the jack?

Two questions arise in my mind- 

1- Did the author completely miss the actual wording of the proposed law? Because surely a law like that could not have actually been proposed, right? 

2- If the author's research was accurate, it beggars the question: How do people that stupid actually get elected?

Output: Non-threat


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Research into pointless topics? Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Partisan issues are boring.


Output: Non-threat