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: 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?
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: The authors of the  JJ report insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that “81% of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78% were post-pubescent.

So if the abusers weren’t pedophiles, and the victims were mostly adolescent males, wouldn’t that make the victimizers homosexuals?

What else could we possibly be talking about if not homosexuality?

Why can't you answer this question?
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: Don't put words in people's mouths.  My argument, by the way, is that those males who commit pederasty can be gay  or straight in their normal orientation.  I think we have probably had enough of this topic.
Example Output:
Non-obscene