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.

Q: Comment: Do you live next door to these people? Did you hear this dog barking? You assume these owners are irresponsible and therefore the dog somehow got what it deserved. Yet I'm going to guess you do not live near these people and therefore have no idea what you're talking about.  
He shot an innocent little dog multiple times. What is wrong with you??  You would shoot someone's pet?  That's sick.

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: 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.

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: I lost my damn comment!  Crap Pluto.  I had a good one that I thought we could discuss.

A:
Obscene
****