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.

Ex Input:
Comment: What are the Chinese going to do.....stop selling crap to Walmart?

Ex Output:
Obscene


Ex Input:
Comment: Consider this analogy. Your daughter and her children are kidnapped by a notorious gang in Mississauga. A ransom is demanded. Does the government prohibit you from negotiating with that gang for the release of your family members? No, of course not. They'll eagerly handle the negotiations for you, or coach you every step of the way. 

You're not considered a criminal for negotiating with or paying a home-grown gang of thugs, even though such criminals pose a far greater risk to Canadians than some remote terrorist group. But should a raggedy group of militants in the mountains of Afghanistan get their hands on your family members, you are liable to a prison term of 14 years for negotiating with them and paying for your family's release.

The government's position is cruel and hypocritical. It's not a policy, it's an ideology. "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" Except, of course, when they do it to get government employees released.

Ex Output:
Non-obscene


Ex Input:
Comment: At the moment he chose to pull the trigger, there was -- literally -- no threat, no possibility for "any degree of force" to be used against anyone. 

These aren't just facts - they're uncontradicted facts. The defense is just hoping the jury will ignore the facts by (a) convolution of the time frame so that earlier events are intermixed with later events, (b) pointing to facts unknown and unknowable to the defendant at the time, and (c) insisting that possibilities that are physically impossible could be possible.

That said, I'd be betting on juror nullification of the law in this case. 

But kudos to the prosecutor for not ignoring such a clear-cut, textbook case of cold blooded murder - in El Paso Cty nonetheless! (That fact alone should convince observers of how obvious a crime this was. Prosecuting a Green Beret for executing a scumbag! I'm certain the prosecutor looked for any alternative other than prosecution! Now that is dedication to the law - lady justice with a blindfold.)

Ex Output:

Non-obscene