[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?

[orangelobster]

"Your reluctance to answer speaks VOLUMES about an attitude of permissiveness that you've done nothing to dispel."

I've already supplied you with a definition of contempt above. I agree with the definition. You exhibit a lot of contempt for the kid with a cellphone as does the judge. If anything it will be interesting to see how the judge is dealt with.

[orangelobster]

tell me how the ringing cellphone fits into the above dictionary definition of 'contempt' without any verbose diversion.