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.

Ex Input:
Comment: Bishops are just like little boys who get caught being naughty, they resist getting punished! But priests are expendable! Always have been. That's to keep bishops from getting punished!

Ex Output:
Non-obscene

Ex Input:
Comment: Correct me if I am wrong, but following criticism in these comments, I no longer see the perp described as a "white man" in this story.

(However, he continues to be described as a"white man" in a related story here.)

Let me know whether I just missed the white descriptor on second reading.

Ex Output:
Non-obscene

Ex Input:
Comment: "Bannon damaged his standing by giving an interview to the liberal American Prospect this week in which he was seen to be undercutting Trump's position on North Korea."

Missing here is the OTHER comment made by Bannon that undercut some of Trump's base support. Bannon called Neo-Nazis and white supremacists "clowns" in the same interview, I believe. THAT might have been the tipping point.

About Bannon blithely stating he'll go back to Breibart? Hmm, maybe. Perhaps he won't be welcome there, either. Not for his ideological beliefs, necessarily, but simply because, in his absence, the website's management has "moved on" so to speak, and he's simply not wanted on the voyage. What an irony that would be.

Ex Output:
Non-obscene