instruction:
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.
question:
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.
answer:
Non-obscene


question:
Comment: You triggered a memory of a Washington Post magazine article of a man in suburban WDC who had his whole house wired to hear Rush Limbaugh in every room around the clock.  And he was "a devout Catholic!"
You'd think if he was "a devout Catholic" he might have the house wired to hear the gospel in every room around the clock.   But, no!
He got more of a rush from Limbaugh than the gospel, eh?
answer:
Non-obscene


question:
Comment: pass the damn bill allready
answer:

Obscene