In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

[Q]: Comment: "Arson in the second degree 
164.315 
 A person commits the crime of arson in the second degree if:

By knowingly engaging in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the person causes fire or causes an explosion that damages ...Any property of another and the damages to the property exceed $750"

I think we need to add 'hash oil manufacturing' to this Oregon statute.   Too many stoned idiots are out there playing  chemist.
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Wow Icon you are one sick puppy!  Killing another human isn't a privacy issue and opposing it isn't something just limited to Christians. Every decent human being with a moral compass opposes terminating the life of another for the sake of convenience. Take a close look at which direction abortion laws have been going over the last 20 years and prepare yourself for the day that killing your own child will no longer be an option.
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Sounds like McComas had a few priors but the theft was the only prior that left a victim. He might have tried something stupid that angered the cop. Freedom of information absolutely should be available as soon as it is discovered, for anyone to study. I'm not saying the police are corrupt but they do protect each other. What I fear is the concept of "We have conducted a thorough internal investigation and find no wrong doing on the part of the officer"
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit