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.

Example Input: Comment: Thanks for the historical perspective. Always worth while.
Whom the gods would destroy they first drive mad. We already have the  mad part of Trump covered.
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: Yes, Comrade! Of course a PROGRESSIVE Income Tax where the sucessful minority pays all of the tax.

Why bother, why don't we just kill all the rich and take all of their money (just kidding). After all, that worked out so very well for the Russian peasants, didn't it?
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: Of course you are likely to get different answers to you question depending on whether the person answering agrees with the  characterization of abortion as a 'medical service'.  In either case though, how do we ignore the question of the moral responsibility of the person who facilitated the abortion at home? I just can't see how the balance tips toward  "our freedoms are in jeopardy" by allowing for religious beliefs to be considered in this hypothetical situation. To me it is similar to saying that, if a conscientious objector's refusal to fight results in an invading army winning a battle and then killing innocents civiliams, the c.o. is morally responsible for the civilians' deaths.  (A conclusion I would reject. ) If the rallying cry for abortion rights is freedom of choice, shouldn't we respect the freedom to choose not to take part in or cooperate with them, for those who find abortions objectionable ?
Example Output:
Non-obscene