TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.
PROBLEM: Comment: Actually, those who fought in the military fought to protect the rights of people like those NFL players, and their supporting owners, who made a peaceful demonstration. That is what you fought for: to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.  You did not fight for the flag or national anthem. You fought for the Constitution. This is what our freedom is about. It's not about marching in lock step with what a fake patriot like DT commands. Our military fought so we can protest dictators like DT.

SOLUTION: Non-sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: I posed the question knowing full well there would be no answer from the person fearing abolishment of the first amendment. Fear mongering from the left is so pathetic. What you smell is the unwashed desperation of the leftist cultists.

SOLUTION: Non-sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: You mean the privileged white people? 

I think Ms. Khan is simply one of those people that crave attention and get it by stirring up controversy where there isn't any. The fact that she chose to wear a head covering despite being brought up in a Canadian society is telling in itself. I know lots of observant muslims who fulfill their religious obligations (?) in a less in-your-face type of way. Also, why is she taking up the cause of the First Nations people? I sense it's because of the publicity of the residential schools and the 60's scoop. Taking a controversial stand on the banning of Canada Day celebrations in support of First Nations was likely to garner more attention than any suffering Canadian born muslims have undergone at the hands of privileged white people.

SOLUTION:
Non-sexual-explicit