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: Being registered in multiple states is one thing. Actually voting in the same election more than once is a much bigger issue. 

You should really try a little harder. Comparing anyone to Hitler is a weak attempt to win an arguement. If you really think President Trump is comparable to one of the biggest killers in history you should do a little self reflection.

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: I guess you'd call me a liberal because I tend to favor governmental intervention when "private" behaviors pose serious risks to others.  In this case, however, I swing to the Right.  Assuming that Mr. Jarlstrom's primary "transgression" was to write that he knew something about "engineering" (a generic term), the Board's crusade against him is inane., to say the least.  That would be like me (a retired political scientist) being fined for  illegally "practicing law" because I teach a course in mediation as an effective legal tool.  The case against Mr. Jarlstrom appears to be utter nonsense.  Perhaps one should attack Board members for their lack of proper qualifications.

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: " but it seems all right-wing governments have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century."

Spoken like a true eco-Marxist because they know how everyone else should live....

A:
Non-obscene
****