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 Q]: Comment: Lies lies and more lies
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Who gives a darn about the so called three founding nations. There is blatant bigotry and hypocrisy when that term "founding nations" is used as a smoke screen for racism. My family has been here for well over two hundred years. Does that give me license to discriminate against others? No! If ratepayer's referendums were the standard for zoning changes, NIMBYs would stop 90 of all development. In this case the referendum was invoked, because of local resistance (code word for racism) to the development. The referendum was used by weak politicians for cover.
[EX A]: Obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: The woman and her book won't get much in the way of fair comment here -- the greatest pleasure of the online anonymous is to mock public figures, and in this case, Hillary has been portrayed by the Trumpers especially as a cross between Lucrezia Borgia and Squeaky Fromme (and her email incompetence as the biggest crime in history). But she was never a good campaigner, and the Clintons were old news before 2016. History might be kinder, with the evidence of Trump's Russian helpers confirmed, and the effect of Comey's late intervention... she wasn't wrong about the "deplorables" either, the bigots and supremacists, just wrong in saying it aloud.
If Americans really wanted change, and fairness, Bernie Sanders was their best chance. Not a Clinton, or a silver-spoon real estate hustler who stocks his oval office with players from Goldman-Sachs.
[EX A]:
Non-obscene