contempt

View more Health videos

For more information on contempt, visit Britannica.com.

noun

1. The feeling of despising: despisal, despite, disdain, scorn. See respect/contempt/standing.
2. The disposition boldly to defy or resist authority or an opposing force: contumacy, defiance, despite, recalcitrance, recalcitrancy. See resist/yield.

Definition: disdain, disgrace
Antonyms: admiration, affection, approbation, approval, endorsement, love, regard, respect, sanction

An act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body.

Individuals may be cited for contempt when they disobey an order, fail to comply with a request, tamper with documents, withhold evidence, interrupt proceedings through their actions or words, or otherwise defy a public authority or hold it up to ridicule and disrespect. The laws and rules governing contempt have developed in a piecemeal fashion over time and give wide discretion to judges and legislative leaders in determining both what constitutes contempt and how it is punished.

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside of a courtroom. Courts have great leeway in making contempt charges, and thus confusion sometimes exists about the distinctions between types of contempt. Generally, however, contempt proceedings are categorized as civil or criminal, and direct or indirect.

Civil contempt generally involves the failure to perform an act that is ordered by a court as a means to enforce the rights of individuals or to secure remedies for parties in a civil action. For instance, parents who refuse to pay court-ordered child support may be held in contempt of court under civil contempt. Criminal contempt involves behavior that assaults the dignity of the court or impairs the ability of the court to conduct its work. Criminal contempt can occur within a civil or criminal case. An example of a criminal contempt is a witness's or spectator's shouting or insulting the judge during a trial. A civil contempt usually is a violation of the rights of one person, whereas a criminal contempt is an offense against society. Courts use civil contempt as a coercive power, wielding it only to ask that the contemnor comply with the courts' actions. Criminal contempt is punitive; courts use it to punish parties who have impaired the courts' functioning or bruised their dignity.

A direct contempt is an act that occurs in the presence of the court and is intended to embarrass or engender disrespect for the court. Shouting in the courtroom or refusing to answer questions for a judge or attorney under oath is a direct contempt. Indirect contempt occurs outside of the presence of the court, but its intention is also to belittle, mock, obstruct, interrupt, or degrade the court and its proceedings. Attempting to bribe a district attorney is an example of an indirect contempt. Publishing any material that results in a contempt charge is an indirect contempt. Other indirect contempts include preventing process service, improperly communicating to or by jurors, and withholding evidence. One man was threatened with contempt charges because he had filed more than 350 lawsuits that the judge considered frivolous. Indirect contempt also may be called constructive or consequential contempt; all three terms mean the same thing.

The essence of contempt of court is that the misconduct impairs the fair and efficient administration of justice. Contempt statutes generally require that the actions present a " clear and present danger" that threatens the administration of justice.

The manner in which an act is committed or the tone in which words are spoken can determine whether contempt has occurred. Circumstances, such as the context in which the words were spoken, the tone, the facial expression, the manner, and the emphasis, are also evaluated by the court. Failure to complete an act that, if completed, would tend to bring the court into disrespect does not preclude the act from being contemptuous.

Criticisms of the Contempt-of-Court Power

The discretion permitted to judges in determining what is contempt and how to punish it has led some legal scholars to argue that the contempt power gives too much authority to judges. Earl C. Dudley, University of Virginia law professor, wrote that in the contempt power, "the roles of victim, prosecutor and judge are dangerously commingled."

Much of the criticism focuses on the lack of restraint or due process in determining punishments for contempt. In criminal contempt, the contempt charges become a separate matter, but they may be heard by the judge who made them. In addition, the same judge may commence punishment immediately, and the punishment may be in effect until the contempt case is settled. Critics have argued that judges— who are the principal offended party — may be too harsh. For instance, in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a decision by a Virginia judge who had fined the United Mine Workers of America $52 million in connection with violence that occurred during a 1989 strike. The High Court stated that the fines were excessive and improperly imposed because the union had never had a chance to defend itself in a trial before the fines were imposed.

Similarly, individuals who have refused to provide courts with information have been held in jail — sometimes for years — under contempt charges. In Maryland, a woman involved in a custody battle with her ex-husband refused to reveal the whereabouts of her child. Elizabeth Morgan spent twenty-five months in jail before her ex-husband dropped the custody case and it was revealed that the child was staying with Morgan's parents in New Zealand. Journalist Myron Farber, of the New York Times, spent more than three years in jail for refusing to turn over notes that prosecutors sought for a murder trial.

Judges and scholars have defended the practices of indefinite jail time because the contemnor "carries the keys to his prison in his own pocket" and can be released by complying with the court (In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448 [8th Cir. 1902]).

Civil contempt proceedings end when the suit from which they arose is resolved. Criminal contempt continues as a separate matter. Settlements may involve jail time, fines, or other retribution. For instance, when the Cable News Network was found guilty of contempt of court for airing audiotapes related to the trial of Manuel Noriega, the deposed president of Panama, the network was given the choice of airing a retraction and an apology for using the tapes or paying a large fine. The network made the apology.

Contempt of Congress

The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to coerce cooperation from individuals or to punish acts of disobedience or disrespect through contempt proceedings. However, the power was discussed at the Constitutional Convention and was implied in the Constitution. In 1795, Congress used the power of contempt for the first time when it arrested, tried, and punished a man accused of bribing members of the House of Representatives. Then Congress acted on its own authority — now called the self-help power, which grants Congress the right to compel testimony and punish disobedience without the involvement of a court or other government body if the individual's actions obstruct the legislative process. By 1821, the Supreme Court recognized Congress's power to arrest and punish individuals for contempt. In 1857, Congress created a statute governing prosecution for contempt, which shifted the responsibility for determining contempt from Congress itself to the courts. Until 1945, Congress largely ignored this criminal statute and continued to compel testimony and deal with contemnors through its own power.

In the late twentieth century, the Supreme Court noted, "Congress has practically abandoned its original practice of utilizing the coercive (self-help) sanction of contempt proceedings at the bar of the House" (Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 77 S. Ct. 1173, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1273[1957]). Under the criminal statute, Congress must petition the U.S. attorney to bring a case of possible contempt before a grand jury. The case is then tried in federal court.

Most contempt citations arise from Congress's investigatory powers. In its decisions since World War II, the Supreme Court has outlined requirements that Congress must meet before it can compel testimony. The investigation must have a valid legislative purpose. It must be conducted by a committee or subcommittee of the House of Representatives or Senate, or the authority of the investigating body must be clearly defined in a resolution. The questions asked of witnesses must be pertinent to the subject of inquiry. Contempt proceedings cannot be used to harass an individual or organization. Finally, before individuals can be held in contempt, they must willfully default, either by failing to appear before the investigating body or by refusing to answer pertinent questions.

Congress's contempt power has come into conflict with the First Amendment in several cases. The first of these cases was Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S. Ct. 1081, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1115, in which Lloyd Barenblatt refused to answer five questions of the House Un-American Activities Committee, regarding Communist infiltration of educational institutions. Barenblatt was convicted of contempt, then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the questions violated his First Amendment right to freedom of association. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, supported Barenblatt. The Court stated that the questions were too vague to support a contempt citation and that Congress's investigative powers must be balanced against First Amendment rights.

The conflict between Congress's investigative powers and the First Amendment surfaced again in 1992 when Nina Totenberg, a National Public Radio correspondent, refused to answer questions of a Senate special counsel about how she obtained confidential documents related to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Totenberg had earlier revealed that the Senate Judiciary Committee was looking into accusations that Thomas had sexually harassed members of his staff. The charges led to public testimony by law professor Anita Hill. A Senate special counsel asked to have Totenberg held in contempt when she refused to reveal who leaked information about the charges to her. The request was denied by the Senate Rules Committee because of its potential "chilling effect on the media."

Congress also has used the contempt power in conflicts with private parties and the executive branch of government. For instance, business partners of Ferdinand Marcos, former president of the Philippines, produced documents for the House Foreign Affairs Committee only under threat of contempt citations. And James G. Watt, former secretary of the interior, was charged with contempt by a congressional committee in the early 1980s when, citing executive privilege, he refused to release Interior Department documents.

See: Freedom of the Press.

n.

The feeling of a prudent man for an enemy who is too formidable safely to be opposed.

LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!

• Blame, Censure, Ridicule, and Contempt - contempt: disdain, lack of respect; disgrace

For other uses, see contempt (disambiguation).

A painting by Louis-Léopold Boilly (ca. 1797).
The woman has been interpreted as a prostitute (who is disdaining the inadequate coin proferred by the fashionable gentleman getting his shoes shined at left).

Contempt is a secondary emotion (not among the original six emotions) and is a mix of the primary emotions disgust and anger.^[1] The word originated in 1393, from the Latin word contemptus meaning "scorn." It is the past participle of contemnere and from com- intens. prefix + temnere "to slight, scorn." The origin is uncertain. Contemptuous appeared in 1529.^[2]

Robert C. Solomon places contempt on the same continuum as resentment and anger, and he argues that the differences between the three is that resentment is directed toward a higher status individual; anger is directed toward an equal status individual; and contempt is directed toward a lower status individual.^[3]

Contents 1 Cultural context 2 Characteristics 3 Defining features of contempt 4 Response to contempt 5 Contempt in relationships 5.1 Same sex relationships 5.2 Marriage 6 See also 7 References

Cultural context

Ekman and Friesen (1986) identified a specific facial empression that observers in ten different cultures, both Western and non-Western, agreed signaled contempt. In this study, citizens of West Sumatra, Indonesia, were given photos of American, Japanese, and Indonesian peoples. Their ability to classify some facial expressions as contempt versus the primary emotions of anger, disgust, happiness, sadness, fear, or surprise showed that across cultures, generall contempt is universally understood (with level of agreement equating to 75%).^[4] “An expression in which the corner of the lip is tightened and raised slightly on one side of the face (or much more strongly on one side than the other) signaled contempt.” This study showed that contempt, as well as the outward expression of contempt, can be pointed out across Western and Non-Western peoples when contrasted with other primary emotions.

Characteristics

Paul Ekman, a widely recognized psychologist, found six emotions that were universally recognized: anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise. Findings on contempt are less clear, though there is at least some preliminary evidence that this emotion and its expression are universally recognized.^[5]

Defining features of contempt

Contempt has five features.^[6] Contempt requires a judgment concerning the appearance or standing of the object of contempt. In particular, contempt involves the judgment that, because of some moral or personal failing or defect, the contemned person has compromised his or her standing vis-à-vis an interpersonal standard that the contemnor treats as important. This may have not been done deliberately but by a lack of status. This lack of status may cause the contemptuous to classify the object of contempt as utterly worthless, or as not fully meeting a particular interpersonal standard. Therefore, contempt is a response to a perceived failure to meet an interpersonal standard. Contempt is also a particular way of regarding or attending to the object of contempt, and this form of regard has an unpleasant effective element. However, contempt may be experienced as a highly visceral emotion similar to disgust, or as cool disregard.

Contempt has a certain comparative element. In David Hume's studies of contempt, he suggests that contempt essentially requires apprehending the “bad qualities” of someone “as they really are” while simultaneously making a comparison between this person and ourselves. Because of this reflexive element, contempt also involves what we might term a “positive self-feeling” of the contemptuous. A characteristic of contempt is the psychological withdrawal or distance one typically feels regarding the object of one’s contempt. This psychological distancing is an essential way of expressing one’s nonidentification with the object of one’s contempt and it precludes sympathetic identification with the object of contempt. (Hume, 2002, 251) Contempt for a person involves a way of negatively and comparatively regarding or attending to someone who has not fully lived up to an interpersonal standard that the person extending contempt thinks is important. This form of regard constitutes a psychological withdrawal from the object of contempt.^[7]

Response to contempt

The main response of contempt lies within “publicized expression of low regard for the objects held in contempt” (Miller, C.H., 2008). By this reasoning, a person holding contempt would not have the urge to openly confront the person with whom they are at odds with, nor would they themselves try to remove the object of contempt; rather, one who holds contempt would have the tendency to hold the view that others should remove the object of contempt, or hold the view that the object of contempt should remove itself. So while one would make their feelings known to others, the person with contempt would not necessarily want to directly deal with the situation at hand. One who is experiencing contempt would exhibit negative affective behaviors that may be labeled as “cold” – this simply meaning that one who is experiencing the emotion of contempt would tend to alienate those responsible.^[8]

Contempt in relationships

Same sex relationships

Men and women act differently when displaying contempt in same sex relationships. Not only do girls engage in more non-verbal forms of social aggression than boys do, girls dissembled more than boys do, speaking nicely but making mean faces. In the research provided by Underwood (2004) in their laboratory observation studies where they watch girls and boys in an identical social context in which best friends respond to a provoking newcomer, gender differences emerge not for the verbal behaviours, but for the nonverbal expressions of disdain and contempt (which are so glaring that they were observed with high degrees of inter-coder reliability by both women and men, kappa’s exceeding .8; Underwood et al., 2003).^[9] There are several reasons why girls can be especially prone to conveying anger and contempt by nonverbal forms of social exclusion. One reason may be that girls are socialized from infancy onward to be overtly nice and conciliatory and do so to avoid conflict whenever possible, for fear of being excluded from relationships, disliked, or punished (for reviews, see Brown and Gilligan, 1993; Underwood, 2003; Zahn-Waxler, 2000). Non-verbal forms of social exclusion may be a highly effective way to harm someone with relatively few social consequences; the hurtful act is fleeting, can often be executed behind the victim’s back and outside of the watchful eyes of adults, and, even if caught, mean faces are typically not punished. Second, girls may hurt one another via non-verbal expressions of exclusion or disdain because girls and women may gaze at others more for reasons related to their lower social status, so as to learn as much as possible about others’ needs and desires (see LaFrance, 2002, for a fascinating discussion of ‘Smile boycotts and other body politics’, p. 319). Because girls and women gaze at others often, perhaps mean glares are more effective as a means of wielding power. Third, non-verbal forms of social exclusion may be powerful for girls because their relationships involve high levels of intimacy and self-disclosure (see Buhrmester and Prager, 1995, for a review), thus even subtle indicators of exclusion are threatening. Fourth, non-verbal forms of social exclusion may be powerful for girls because although they fiercely desire and defend popularity with other girls, they dread being labelled as ‘stuck up’ (Merten, 1997).^[10] Recently, the Palo Alto City Council defeated a resolution that would have discouraged elected officials from facial expressions conveying contempt at public meetings; this was proposed because council members were so weary of colleagues intimidating one another by these subtle but rude facial expressions (‘City Council Allows Frowning’, Daily Southtown , 2003). If adult politicians cannot figure out how to cope with non-verbal forms of social aggression, it is little wonder that girls struggle with how to cope with this type of hostility.^[11]

Marriage

Research demonstrates how childhood abuse ties into maladaptive communication dynamics consisting of contempt-laden conflict and emotional withdrawal. These findings are important because maladaptive marital communication may be one mechanism by which traumatic childhood experiences translate into poor adult relationship quality. Forms of verbal aggression, such as contempt, belligerence, and defensiveness, are associated with destructive, hostile patterns of conflict resolution ( [Gottman et al., 1998] and [Straus, 1979]). Couples who use such communication styles are more likely to have higher levels of marital distress (Roberts, 2000), lower levels of marital satisfaction (Holman and Jarvis, 2003), and lower levels of marital stability ( [Gottman et al., 1998], [Holman and Jarvis, 2003] and [DeMaris, 2000]).^[12] Gottman (1999) identified several behaviors that are particular indicative of distress in relationships. One series of behaviors, which he termed the four horsemen, includes a cascading of responses such as expressing criticism, defensiveness, contempt, sarcasm, hostility, and withdrawal, the combination of which indicate a critical state of marriage dissolution.^[13] Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson (1995) found that “Negative emotional behavior, such as expressed anger, sadness, contempt, and other negative emotions, appears to be the best discriminator between satisfied and dissatisfied marriages”. Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson (1995) also discovered that “In terms of speaker behaviors, wives were coded as showing more total emotion, negative emotion, anger, joy, contempt, whining, and sadness.” This supports the stereotype that women express more emotion than men both in general and in relationships. It also supports the idea that men are less expressive than women and tend to be more defensive minded in conversations.^[14] Six short self-report measures were used to assess several component communication skills (Gottman 1999). Specifically, the questionnaires assessed Repair Attempts, Accepting Influence, Harsh Start-Up, Flooding, Gridlock, and the Four Horsemen. These six measures were chosen because they were of theoretical and clinical interest to the authors, incorporated both adaptive and maladaptive communication behaviors, and included those aspects of couple communication considered by many to be most toxic, including withdrawal and contempt (Gottman 1999; Gottman et al. 1998; Johnson 2003).^[15] Finally, the Four Horsemen create a cascading sequence of responses in which one partner expresses criticism and the other partner responds with defensiveness, causing the first partner to react to the defensiveness with contempt, sarcasm, and/or hostility with their partner, eventually withdrawing from, or stonewalling, the conversation. This cascading negative sequence which occurs as a repetitive, interlocking pattern is believed to signify a critical end-stage process of relationship dissolution, representing a final common causal pathway to relationship dissolution (see Gottman 1994).^[16] In the book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, author Malcolm Gladwell discusses John Gottman's theories of how to predict which couples will stay married. Gottman's theory states that there are four major emotional reactions that are destructive to a marriage: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt. Among these four, Gottman considers contempt the most destructive of them all.^[17] For all others forms of aggression the Four Horsemen emerged as significant predictors of classification, which is expected given that this construct includes very negative, contemptuous behaviors. This is consistent with marital research, which contends that these communication behaviors are highly toxic, and erode relationship satisfaction (Cornelius et al. 2007; Gottman 1999).^[18][19]

See also

• Pejorative

References

1. ^ TenHouten,W.D. (2007). General Theory of Emotions and Social Life. Routledge.
2. ^ "Contempt. (n.d.)". Online Etymology Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contempt. Retrieved April 20, 2008. 
3. ^ Solomon R.C. (1993). The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life. Hackett Publishing.
4. ^ Ekman, P & Heider, K.G. (1988). The Universality of Contempt Expression: A Replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 303-308.
5. ^ Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and encoding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.
6. ^ Bell, M. (2005). A Woman’s Scorn: Toward a Feminist Defense of Contempt as a Moral Emotion. “Hypatia”, 20.4, 80-93.
7. ^ Bell,M. (2005). A Woman’s Scorn: Toward a Feminist Defense of Contempt as a Moral Emotion. Hypatia, 20.4,80-93.
8. ^ Miller, C. H. (2008). How dare you! A measure of indignation. Manuscript in preparation, University of Oklahoma.
9. ^ Underwood, M. K. (2004). Glares of Contempt, Eye Rolls of Digust and Turning Away to Exclude: Non-verbal Forms of Social Aggression among Girls. Feminism & Psychology, 14(3), 371-375.
10. ^ Underwood, M. K. (2004). Glares of Contempt, Eye Rolls of Digust and Turning Away to Exclude: Non-verbal Forms of Social Aggression among Girls. Feminism & Psychology, 14(3), 371-375.
11. ^ Underwood, M. K. (2004). Glares of Contempt, Eye Rolls of Digust and Turning Away to Exclude: Non-verbal Forms of Social Aggression among Girls. Feminism & Psychology, 14(3), 371-375.
12. ^ Kristy M. Krivickas (a, ⁎., Laura A. Sanchez, (., Catherine T. Kenney, (., & James D. Wright, (. (2010). Fiery wives and icy husbands: Pre-marital counseling and covenant marriage as buffers against effects of childhood abuse on gendered marital communication?. Social Science Research, 39(Marriage and Family in the New Millenium:Papers in Honor of Steven L. Nock), 700-714. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.05.003
13. ^ Cornelius, T., Shorey, R., & Beebe, S. (2010). Self-Reported Communication Variables and Dating Violence: Using Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization. Journal Of Family Violence, 25(4), 439-448. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
14. ^ Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long term marriage.. American Psychological Association, 10(1), 140-149.
15. ^ Cornelius, T., Shorey, R., & Beebe, S. (2010). Self-Reported Communication Variables and Dating Violence: Using Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization. Journal Of Family Violence, 25(4), 439-448. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
16. ^ Cornelius, T., Shorey, R., & Beebe, S. (2010). Self-Reported Communication Variables and Dating Violence: Using Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization. Journal Of Family Violence, 25(4), 439-448. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
17. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm (copyright 2005). Blink. Back Bay Books imprint (Little, Brown and Company). pp. 32–33. ISBN 0-316-01066-9.
18. ^ Cornelius, T., Shorey, R., & Beebe, S. (2010). Self-Reported Communication Variables and Dating Violence: Using Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization. Journal Of Family Violence, 25(4), 439-448. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
19. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm (copyright 2005). Blink. Back Bay Books imprint (Little, Brown and Company). pp. 32–33. ISBN 0-316-01066-9. http://www.gladwell.com/blink/. 

v t e Emotions (list) Emotions Adoration Affection Agony Awe Amusement Anger Anguish Annoyance Anxiety Arousal Attraction Caring Compassion Contempt Contentment Defeat Dejection Depression Desire Despair Disappointment Disgust Ecstasy Embarrassment Empathy Enthrallment Enthusiasm Envy Euphoria Excitement Fear Frustration Grief Guilt Happiness Hatred Homesickness Hope Horror Hostility Humiliation Hysteria Infatuation Insecurity Insult Interest Irritation Isolation Jealousy Loneliness Longing Love Lust Melancholy Neglect Optimism Panic Passion Pity Pleasure Pride Rage Regret Rejection Remorse Resentment Sadness Sentimentality Shame Shock Sorrow Spite Suffering Surprise Sympathy Tenseness Thrill Revenge Wonder Worry Diligence Zest Worldviews Compatibilism Existentialism Fatalism Incompatibilism Metaphysics Nihilism Optimism Pessimism Reclusion Social justice Weltschmerz Source: Parrott, W. (2001), Emotions in Social Psychology, Psychology Press, Philadelphia.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - foragt

idioms:

• contempt of court    foragt for retten

Nederlands (Dutch)
ver-/minachting, verachtelijkheid

Français (French)
n. - mépris

idioms:

• contempt of court    (Jur) outrage au tribunal, offense à la cour, refus de comparaître

Deutsch (German)
n. - Verachtung, Geringschätzung, Mißachtung

idioms:

• contempt of court    Ungebühr vor Gericht

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - περιφρόνηση, καταφρόνια

idioms:

• contempt of court    (νομ.) προσβολή δικαστηρίου

Italiano (Italian)
disprezzo

idioms:

• beneath contempt    indegno di considerazione
• contempt of court    inosservanza di un provvedimento del giudice

Português (Portuguese)
n. - desprezo (m), contumácia (f) (Jur.)

idioms:

• beneath contempt    acusação (f) menosprezada (por ser tão ridícula, etc.)
• contempt of court    desobediência (f) a uma ordem judicial
• familiarity breeds contempt    quando conhecemos alguém muito bem, tendemos a perder o respeito (Prov.)

Русский (Russian)
презрение

idioms:

• beneath contempt    быть недостойным презрения
• contempt of court    неуважение к суду
• familiarity breeds contempt    чем ближе знаешь, тем меньше уважаешь

Español (Spanish)
n. - desprecio, desdén, menosprecio

idioms:

• contempt of court    desacato al tribunal

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - förakt

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
轻视, 耻辱, 轻蔑

idioms:

• contempt of court    对法院的藐视罪, 藐视法庭罪, 藐视法庭

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 輕視, 恥辱, 輕蔑

idioms:

• contempt of court    對法院的藐視罪, 藐視法庭罪, 藐視法庭

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 경멸, 치욕, 모욕죄

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 侮り, 軽蔑, 侮辱罪, 恥辱, 屈辱

idioms:

• contempt of court    裁判所侮辱

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) حقد, كراهيه, احتقار, ازدراء, استصغار‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮התעלמות, בוז‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.