[orangelobster]

"Otherwise, you'd answer my question: what actions merit a charge of "contempt of court","

that's not the point. The issue is whether a ringing cellphone constitutes contempt. The answer is no.

[MEGoody]

"The issue is whether a ringing cellphone constitutes contempt. The answer is no."

The answer is a resounding YES, since the judge had warned everyone to turn them off. This girl refused. She deserved what she got.

[beezdotcom]

that's not the point. The issue is whether a ringing cellphone constitutes contempt. The answer is no.

No, that's EXACTLY the point. If I'm going to argue with someone over what does or doesn't constitute "contempt of court", I want to know if they consider ANYTHING "contempt of court".

Your reluctance to answer speaks VOLUMES about an attitude of permissiveness that you've done nothing to dispel. If you can't even bring yourself to admit there IS such an actionable offense as "contempt of court", then why should anyone use your arguments as a discriminator of what is, and what isn't?