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 Q]: Comment: I guess you'd call me a liberal because I tend to favor governmental intervention when "private" behaviors pose serious risks to others.  In this case, however, I swing to the Right.  Assuming that Mr. Jarlstrom's primary "transgression" was to write that he knew something about "engineering" (a generic term), the Board's crusade against him is inane., to say the least.  That would be like me (a retired political scientist) being fined for  illegally "practicing law" because I teach a course in mediation as an effective legal tool.  The case against Mr. Jarlstrom appears to be utter nonsense.  Perhaps one should attack Board members for their lack of proper qualifications.
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Some conviction leadership rather than suck & blow Trudeau would be a start
[EX A]:
Obscene