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: Goodness knows where you are coming from. 

The Catalan flag and its symbols is hated by the Spanish Government as it unifies, sort of, a historic area and language with much talk of independence / home rule. The old SA flag, if memory serves me, dates from about 1912 not 1948.
The destruction of books, Art, banning, etc was done by many who disagreed with them, whether the Nazi or today's UCT, or students of a destructive sort, educatable, I am less certain. 
I was not educated in SA but UK. 
Paper was not 'discovered' but manufactured, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in todays Iraq, but out of reeds and not at all todays paper. Why you mention it I don't know.

The rest of what you say, were I to print it, would be consigned to the dustbin!
Non-obscene

Comment: If they consume clean drinkable water, then they are practicing what they are protesting against. This protest is about clean water, not oil sold to foreign markets, in a world where the demand for oil continues to decrease. No entity on earth use more oil than the Pentagon and their cheerleading for the military industrial complex. The COMMONS, like clean water and air are a basic right in life, not just a fuel for the elite to purchase their mansions and yachts. Hypocrisy has no corner of the world that it hangs out in.
Non-obscene

Comment: My point was and is, why bring it up? That sorry episode has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Why not bring up the murder of Caesar? Motley is using a killing (justified or not, we don't know)to bring up a sad episode in ancient US history involving two people who are long dead. Nothing I said about it is incorrect. It wasn't a "rationalization" since my statement of plain facts had no intent to rationalize. Nor did I defend it. The truth, sir, is not a "rationalization".

But thanks for your useless addition to Motley's irrelevant and mean-spirited provocation. Also, congratulations on yet another deflection from the topic at hand.

Non-obscene