Do young animals count as pedophilia? So, someone has been accusing me of pedophilia since I have an attraction to young animals. I know that it's pedophilia if the person is attracted to young human children, but does it count as pedophilia if the person is attracted to animals instead of humans?
No. According to the Section 18 of the U.S. Code, § 2251: (a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct,shall be punished as provided under subsection (e) [...] and a minor is defined (Section 18 of the U.S. Code, § 2256) as "any person under the age of eighteen years". As such, you cannot be considered a pedophile. However, if you have sexual intercourses with animals, depending on the State laws on the matter, you might be charged with bestiality or similar offences.
Yes, this is legal, unless Richardson, TX has a specific local law making it illegal. In the US, discrimination is legal, unless it discriminates against one or more specific enumerated classes. Under federal law, and as far as I am aware, Texas law, students are NOT a protected class. As such discrimination against them is legal, unless Richardson, TX or its incorporating county have a specific law or regulation prohibiting it. Incidentally, age is generally not a protected class, and when it is a protected class, it is generally only illegal to discriminate against people above a specified age, not below. Note that discrimination happens all the time, over a variety of factors, that many people don't even consider discrimination. For example, many colleges and universities discriminate on the basis of GPAs for acceptance to various programs; this is legal. In the past, many colleges and universities discriminated against potential students on the basis of sex or race, which is now illegal.
People aged 19 and 18 are "teens" and legally permitted to perform in pornographic videos. That's how it's legal.
Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor under Maryland law (11-107). There is no statutory definition of indecent exposure, since it's been a long-standing offense and part of common law. Messina v. Maryland cites various definitions of indecent exposure, noting Ordinarily, the place where the exposure is made must be public. What constitutes a public place within the meaning of this offense depends on the circumstances of the case. The place where the offense is committed is a public one if the exposure be such that it is likely to be seen by a number of casual observers In that instance, the question was whether the law required multiple victims to constitute a crime, and the court said that it did not. What you propose does seem to fit the characterization "likely to be seen by a number of casual observers". There have been a number of upheld convictions of people exposing themselves on their own property but in a manner that can be seen from the street, so the defense "I was on my property" doesn't go anywhere. Accidentally being seen while inside and naked would not be a crime because, as Messina said, "Indecent exposure, to amount to a crime, must have been done intentionally". The question is whether you know that you will be seen: "An exposure becomes indecent, and a crime, when defendant exposes himself at such a time and place that, as a reasonable man, he knows or should know his act will be open to the observation of others". It's not absolutely guaranteed that you would be prosecuted, but it's pretty clear that what you propose does constitute indecent exposure.
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case. It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required? In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
The relevant (criminal) defence is Sec 11(b)(3) [the Civil defence in Sec 11(a)(iii) is an easier one]: (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall be a defence to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species. I would say that the defendant could easily demonstrate a "good faith belief that he was acting to ... any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species." Even if there were other ways to rescue the child other than lethal force to the gorilla they all would have necessitated exposing the child to a longer period of danger, exposing another person to danger or may have had less predictable outcomes (e.g. tranquilisers have an onset time) all of which would be unconscionable.
The closest possible prohibition is found in s. 286.1 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to pay for the &quot;sexual services of a person.&quot; &quot;Sexual services&quot; is not a defined term. The Department of Justice provides its opinion about what this term might cover, but that is not determinative. In relation to a charge of the previous version of this prohibition (which also used the term &quot;sexual services&quot;), counsel was unable to direct the judge to a definition of the term, and the judge was unable to find one (2015 ABPC 241). The judge adopted a test that requires the service to include &quot;some sexually suggestive physical act on the part of the person providing the sexual service&quot;. This is a test somewhat stricter than the one proposed by the Department of Justice in that in addition to merely being &quot;sexually stimulating or gratifying,&quot; there physical act itself must be &quot;sexually suggestive.&quot; [50] What is a “sexual service”? Counsel have not directed me to, nor have I been able to find a definition of the term “sexual services”. [51] Sexual services” would clearly include any type of sexual intercourse, or physical contact for purposes of masturbation. It would also include posing for nude photographs. A request “to touch or feel the breasts of the [female] complainant” is an attempt to obtain the sexual services of the complainant. In my view, “sexual services” would also include dancing in a sexually provocative or stimulating fashion. In terms of a general definition, I think the phrase “sexual favours rendered ...for the sexual gratification of the customer” is sufficient. [52] However, I am of the view that the “sexual services” or “sexual favours for the sexual gratification” of a person requires that there be some sexually suggestive physical act on the part of the person providing the sexual service. The sexually suggestive physical act may be many things, such as posing nude, or sexually suggestive dancing, or suggestively removing clothing. That list is not exhaustive, and, with the creativity of the human mind, I doubt one could ever create an exhaustive list. However, the common element is that some sort of sexually suggestive physical act is necessary to constitute the sexual service. [53] In the case at bar, the accused had M.C. engage in what one might call “fantasy role playing”. If the role playing involved M.C. performing a sexually suggestive physical act, then the definition of “sexual service” might well be satisfied. However, in the case at bar, M.C. took on the fantasy role of being the slave in a master/slave relationship. M.C. did not perform any acts as a slave. The “slave role” was one in the mind of the accused (and perhaps M.C.), and had its expression in the content of emails and text messages between Mr. Peterson and M.C., but M.C. did not engage in physical acts for the sexual gratification of the accused. ... [54] M.C. was cast in the role of a slave in fantasy role playing, but the playing really only occurred in the heads of Mr. Peterson and M.C. That does not constitute the act of Mr. Peterson obtaining the sexual services of M.C. [citations removed] But this was a lower trial court's reasoning that has not been adopted by others yet, and no other court has needed to develop the definition at the margins.
In general, the law is not based on the species, it is based on the use of the animal. This gives rise to the difference between food rabbits and pet rabbits, and so on. The definition or applicable offenses are spelled out in each state's criminal code. In Washington, Chapter 9.08 RCW covers "Crimes relating to animals", and 16.52 RCW covers "prevention of cruelty to animals". 9.08.065 defines a "pet animal" as a tamed or domesticated animal legally retained by a person and kept as a companion. "Pet animal" does not include livestock raised for commercial purposes and then makes it a crime to steal a pet animal (this is in addition to regular laws against theft that applies to any property). So if you steal someone's pet goat, that's two or more crimes, but if you steal a meat goat, that's one less crime. The main anti-cruelty laws are in 16.52. Distinctions may be made between between domestic animals and generic animals, or between livestock and others, or food animals and others, so it just depends on the action being forbidden. RCW 16.52.205 says you commit first degree animal cruelty if you intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal. There is no other provision allowing you to torture any animal, not even a backyard rat. It is generally illegal to poison animals, but RCW 16.52.190 allows euthanizing by poison, or pest-eradication by poison (insects are animals too). Thus it is legal to poison a pest rat but illegal to poison a pet rat. There is also a general exception, in 16.52.180, that No part of this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with any of the laws of this state known as the "game laws," nor be deemed to interfere with the right to destroy any venomous reptile or any known as dangerous to life, limb or property, or to interfere with the right to kill animals to be used for food or with any properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations, which experiments or investigations shall be performed only under the authority of the faculty of some regularly incorporated college or university of the state of Washington or a research facility registered with the United States department of agriculture and regulated by 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2131 et seq. This allows you to kill chickens for food, and might be construed as allowing you to feed rats to your snake (the law does not say "used as food for humans"). The definition of 1st degree cruelty also has an exception that "Nothing in this section may be considered to prohibit accepted animal husbandry practices" (however, keeping an animal as a pet or educational object does not constitute "animal husbandry" in the ordinary meaning of words). There is no clear statutory division in Washington between feeding rats to reptiles, and feeding dogs to reptiles, and if you were to feed kittens to your monitor lizard, you might well get arrested. Idaho animal cruelty law also forbids cruelty to any animal: Every person who is cruel to any animal, or who causes or procures any animal to be cruelly treated, or who, having the charge or custody of any animal either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to cruelty shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance with section 25-3520A, Idaho Code. and cruel(ty) is (a) The intentional and malicious infliction of pain, physical suffering, injury or death upon an animal; (b) To maliciously kill, maim, wound, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, drink or shelter, cruelly beat, mutilate or cruelly kill an animal; (c) To subject an animal to needless suffering or inflict unnecessary cruelty; (d) To knowingly abandon an animal; (e) To negligently confine an animal in unsanitary conditions or to negligently house an animal in inadequate facilities; to negligently fail to provide sustenance, water or shelter to an animal. Again, feeding a rat to a snake is not intrinsically malicious, nor is feeding a puppy to a turtle intrinsically malicious. A distinction can be made under the related law on torturing a companion animal (an extension of the original anti-cruelty law): A person is guilty of the offense of torturing a companion animal if he tortures a companion animal as defined in this chapter. where "companion animal" is defined as those animals solely kept as pets and not used as production animals, as defined in this section, including, but not limited to, domestic dogs, domestic cats, rabbits, companion birds, and other animals. This gives a basis for distinguishing feeder rats from feeder puppies. Torture is then defined as the intentional, knowing and willful infliction of unjustifiable and extreme or prolonged pain, mutilation or maiming done for the purpose of causing suffering. "Torture" shall not mean or include acts of omission or of neglect nor acts committed unintentionally or by accident. "Torture" also shall not mean or include normal or legal practices as provided in section 25-3514, Idaho Code. And thus it is not clear that feeding an animal to a turtle counts, since the purpose is to feed the turtle, not to cause suffering. The exceptions spelled out in 25-3514 might be applicable, but there are not clearly applicable. One exception is "The humane slaughter of any animal normally and commonly raised as food, for production of fiber or equines" – perhaps using an animal as feed for another animal can be "humane slaughter", perhaps rats are "normally and commonly" raised as food, unlike dogs. It is not currently against federal law to slaughter cats and dogs for meat, but there is a bill in Congress which would make it so. The bill has 245 sponsors in the House, so it is likely to pass.