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.

Comment: Man, go post that Raider crap on an Oakland newspaper, er, I mean a Vegas newspaper ahahahahaha
Obscene

Comment: The best SA troll? If there's a benefit to that title then maybe the answer is yes. Getting back to your original question. I'm not trying to get votes, I'm not trying to win friends and influence people, I'm not trying to raise capital for investments, I'm not trying to sell you a product or service. I do it for entertainment. It's fun.
Non-obscene

Comment: I'm apalled that some comments blame the woman for a cleavage that was not entirely covered. Have you seen the picture? I haven't, so what we assume about her attire is just that -- an assumption. There are ways to photograph a person (unless she is covered head-to-toe in a burka) that may show a part of her that polite people would not make the main, framed object of focus. Even if she *had* a wardrobe malfunction, wouldn't most people quietly say, "You have an extra button undone," rather than taking a picture?

Above all, nothing she may have worn excuses the fact that 2 open job positions were filled without posting as required by law, excluding her from being able to apply while appointing others with less seniority. This is clearly sexual harrassment: the denial of quid pro quo advancement for not putting up with sexual objectification on the job.

Finally, what the EEOC would once have enforced in a civil nation must now be enacted locally if we are to retain any safety at all.
Non-obscene