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: Okay you don't want to own Morning Joe and his bimbo even though they clearly espouse your views  on President Trump.
Where do you stand on the sexual practices of people like JFK, Bill Clinton, Algore, John Edwards or LBJ?
My point was simply that sexual morality does not have an ideological bias. Can you even agree to something so obvious as that?

Ex Output:
Non-obscene


Ex Input:
Comment: The University, for whatever, reason decided to terminate Mr. Walls' contract.  It was an amazingly "one-sided" document..ostensibly written for four years....but, with a "without cause" clause which allowed the University to terminate it with only one month's notice.  The administration exercised that legal right and terminated Mr. Walls with no stated "cause".....that was perfectly legal...however "unfair" it might seem.  On the other hand, perhaps they did have "cause" but chose to "take the easy way out" and not go through the hassle of proving any justification for his termination.  They experienced considerable "blowback" because of their actions and, it seems, decided to "buy off" Mr. Walls for $90K...."here that this damn money and go away!"  The whole fiasco reflects very badly on the administration...these guys make too much money to be so horribly incompetent...Gary Crum

Ex Output:
Obscene


Ex Input:
Comment: Ironically, Walker's cuts will help deter smart people from moving up to help solve our problems.  We're already in a race for the bottom when it comes to talent.  I thought Walker was smarter than this.

Ex Output:

Non-obscene