Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. Example
Comment: President lied under oath about consensual sex...
Not the same thing as rape.
Answer: Sexual-explicit
Explanation: This comment explicitly mentions "consensual sex" and "rape", and thus is sexual-explicit.
Part 3. Exercise
Comment: Dear God. I read this and I'm sick. I read what they did to FH of Huffington post and I feel even sicker. Why are these international terrorists/mercenaries not called to book?? They should be indicted to the ICC! Why are we not doing anything? We know the main Bell ran off but the other ding dongs are still around so why can't we at the very least force Theresa May to take a good hard look at people who ultimately terrorise for money? Who says they are not responsible for terror inside their country? I use "their country" very loosely as it's quite clear that Vicky dahling isn't really interested in anything but money. If Bell Pottinger can do this, as well as the same type of disgusting terrorism they effected in Iraq, surely they are contravening international laws? If these were suicide bombers or knife wielding attackers they would be shot. These bastards do exactly the same thing by manipulating media and people. Should they be allowed to wander around free?
Answer:
Non-sexual-explicit