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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: The real world isn't like being a reality TV show host with a twitter account is it?

Let's hope this kind of absurdity doesn't lead to something devastating like a war because he heard some random crap a talk show host said.

Output: Obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Yes, it the old French and Latin, well before it was recognized as the name of a Sacrement, which also was not recognized until 1000 years ago. Entymology does not change the fact of relationship for those in marriage nor make the bishop any less a petty fool for his advice to his priests. He's still nursing a bad case of sour grapes.

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: To be fair, there were a number of statements made by former Justice Robin Camp which, taken as a whole, were deemed to be misconduct. That particular statement, however, has been used out of context. It sounds as if it's an admonishment of the complainant, when it was simply the judge trying to get at the specific facts of the alleged crime.

But your analogy illuminates some of the inconsistencies in this matter. Judges are clearly held to a different standard when they conduct sexual assault trials. The straight-forward question you posed in your example of a car theft trial would raise no eyebrows at all. Yet in a sexual assault trial the consequences are plain to see.

The message being hammered into judges is clear: whether you think the female sexual assault complainant is credible or not, you must question her with kid gloves.


Output: Non-obscene