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: why would an international body need to step into our country's affairs to provide cover for the Librano plan? did the locals (meaning Canadians not come up with the right info for the Librano crew to sell their policy to the masses) or is it that the Keynesians at the IMF were the only ones qualified to provide this 'high level' of expert advice
'it approximates that .......' that was all I needed to read to know the report was bunk - why wasnt it done with census data to have a real picture rather than this line of shit - but that is all we seem to get from the Libranos and their supporters - shit

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: The University, for whatever, reason decided to terminate Mr. Walls' contract. It was an amazingly "one-sided" document..ostensibly written for four years....but, with a "without cause" clause which allowed the University to terminate it with only one month's notice. The administration exercised that legal right and terminated Mr. Walls with no stated "cause".....that was perfectly legal...however "unfair" it might seem. On the other hand, perhaps they did have "cause" but chose to "take the easy way out" and not go through the hassle of proving any justification for his termination. They experienced considerable "blowback" because of their actions and, it seems, decided to "buy off" Mr. Walls for $90K...."here that this damn money and go away!" The whole fiasco reflects very badly on the administration...these guys make too much money to be so horribly incompetent...Gary Crum

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: These women will do anything to be famous. All of this is disgusting , Jury, Can we say not guilty?

A:
Non-obscene
****