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.

Q: Comment: you're a piece of shit

A: Obscene
****
Q: 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?

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: "The foul-mouthed man's" utterances were uttered in private or in what he thought was private. How many of us have made unguarded statements in private? 'Saint' PetrusRomanus2 no doubt would never be guilty of this, however the rest of us are human.
Most of us have skeletons in the cupboard, have said things which we regret, have changed our minds and attitudes as the years have gone by and which we would not like to be in the public domain. 
Bill Clinton's similar attitude towards women never seemed to do him any harm, is it because he is a Democrat and Democrats are always to be immune from criticism  for treating. women as sexual objects?
Ashley Judd, however, uttered her filthy, disgusting diatribe purposefully in public and received the acclaim of the public around her for it.  Who is to say that the majority of the demonstrators disagreed with her?
There it is, the difference. Obviously from the persistent, anti-Catholic stance of your posts you cannot understand this.

A:
Non-obscene
****