Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Input: Here's where I think the distinction lies - I may be wrong, and call me out if you want, but here goes:    So, believe all victims is a good and noble idea at a basic level.  When a victim of a crime comes forward, the people that they trust should absolutely support them, and help them get help and try to make it as easy as possible to get the police involved - not necessarily influence them to go to the authorities, but that's where crimes *should* go, for a number of reasons.    This becomes a less tenable position when a) the justice system gets involved and b) when there are real world consequences for leveling an accusation.    With the Jussie Smollett case, we see both of those in play.  When the police investigation unfolded, they were able to put forth compelling evidence against his claim.  The second set is more nuanced, but this is how I see it:  His claims had a major effect to divide the country.  Seeing these claims would have such an effect, it gives us good reason to scrutinize his story.  When we scrutinize the story, we find some major holes (two maga people out after 2 in intensely cold weather, in Chicago, apparently knowing where Smollett was, and being prepared for that confrontation, his refusal to hand over his phone, he walked home and waited 40 minutes or so before calling the police) and we have a good reason to step back a bit from the narrative and wait for an investigation to conclude before deciding.    In short, believe all victims is a good idea, but it becomes more nuanced when there are real consequences that may hurt or jail others, at which time we should scrutinize the story or let the professionals do their job.

no