contempt

Dictionary: con·tempt   (kən-tĕmpt')

1. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.
3. Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

[Middle English, from Latin contemptus, past participle of contemnere, to despise. See contemn.]

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

For more information on contempt, visit Britannica.com.

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.

It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page. (Discuss)

This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (January 2009)

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (January 2009)

For other uses, see Contempt (disambiguation).

Contempt is an intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless—it is similar to scorn. Contempt is also defined as the state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace, and an open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.^[1] One example of contempt could be seen in the character Ebenezer Scrooge from the Charles Dickens' book A Christmas Carol. Scrooge was cold hearted, hating everything about Christmas and looked down upon everyone around him, especially the poor. 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 emotions are 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] Contempt is often brought about by a combination of anger and disgust.^{[4] [5]}

Contents 1 Characteristics 1.1 Facial expressions 2 Cultural contexts 3 In law 4 In marriage 5 References

Characteristics

Contempt has four distinguishing 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. David Hume in his studies of contempt 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. 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.

Although contempt may not be a primary emotion as seen in Robert Plutchik’s color wheel-like circumplex model of emotions, the argument for whether or not contempt is a ‘basic’ emotion (universally recognized) has been disputed and disagreed on for years. 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.^[7] Another study by Ekman and Karl G. Heider shows evidence for universality in a study across cultures in which the level of agreement about a contempt expression compared to the other six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise) was greater than 75% in all samples.^[8]

The coping behaviors for contempt are neither labeled as withdrawal or approach (can be either). However, 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.^[9]

Facial expressions

Many research experiments have been conducted to decide if contempt is recognizable across cultures and some researchers believe contempt is too closely related to the emotion disgust. Even Darwin (1872) noted that contempt shares with sociomoral disgust several common features and one can be mistaken for the other. Both contempt and disgust can fit into the hostility triad, sharing the disapproval of others, and can also be included in the ‘CAD triad’ as they exhibit the common theme of violation of moral ethics.^[10] Ekman and Friesen’s study that gave the first recorded percentages of more than 75% of all their samples distinguishing contempt over the other basic six emotions. Ekman and Friesen found the facial expression that universally signals contempt—a tightening and slight raising of the lip corner, primarily on one side of the face. They noted that contempt is the only emotion expressed asymetrically. ^[11]

And although Ekman and Friesen were the ones who recognized that facial expression as the expression that signaled contempt, it was actually Darwin who first recognized the facial expression for this emotion. Darwin was even more detailed in his description of the facial expressions that occur when contempt is being portrayed. He describes that the nose may be slightly turned up, which apparently follows from the turning up of the upper lip; or the movement may be abbreviated into a mere wrinkling of the nose.^[12]

Cultural contexts

Ekman and Friesen (1986) identified a specific facial expression that observers in each of 10 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 other categorical emotions of anger, disgust, happiness, sadness, fear, or surprise (with the level of agreement equating to 75%) shows that generally, across cultures, contempt is universally understood.^[13] “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.^[14]

Another study by Ekman, Sorenson, and Friesen, published in 1969, studied “Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion.” Their findings suggest “that the pan-cultural element in facial displays of emotion is the association between facial muscular movements and discrete primary emotions, although cultures may still differ in what evokes an emotion, in rules for controlling the display of emotion, and in behavioral consequences.”^[15] Although some cultures differ in terms of how emotions are learned, taught and controlled, Ekman, Sorenson, and Friesen have found that cross culturally, emotions can be recognized similarly.^[16]

Contempt may frequently be one of the emotions experienced by privileged social classes or castes against the oppressed class or caste.

In law

Contempt in the courtroom is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functionality of the court. The judge may impose fines and or jail time upon any person committing contempt of court. The person is usually let out upon their agreement to fulfill the wishes of the court.^[17] Civil contempt can involve acts of omission. The judge will make use of warnings in most any situation that may lead to a person being charged with contempt. It is relatively rare that a person is charged for contempt without first receiving at least one warning from the judge.^[18] Constructive contempt, also called consequential contempt is when a person fails to fulfill the will of the court as it applies to outside obligations of the person. In most cases, constructive contempt is considered to be in the realm of civil contempt because of its passive nature.

Indirect contempt is something that is associated with civil and constructive contempt and involves a failure to follow court orders. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be called a disturbance such as repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned evidence, or harassment of any other party in the courtroom.^[19] Direct contempt is an unacceptable act in the presence of the judge (in facie curiae), and generally begins with a warning, and may be accompanied by an immediate imposition of punishment.

Contempt of court has a significant impact on journalism in the form of restrictions on court reporting which are set out in statute in the UK.^[20]

In marriage

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”. This is a commonly agreed with idea, that contempt can play a large role in bringing down relationships. This is likely due to its destructive nature similar in some ways to greed or a grudge. 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.^[21]

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 important of them all. ^[22]

References

1. ^ (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Ed. Houghton Mifflin Company.
2. ^ Contempt. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: [1]
3. ^ Solomon R.C. (1993). The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life. Hackett Publishing.
4. ^ Miller, C. H. (2008). How dare you! A measure of indignation. Manuscript in preparation, University of Oklahoma.
5. ^ Contempt is not a primary emotion; Robert Plutchik’s circumplex model asserts that contempt is a mixture of two of the primary emotions anger and disgust.
6. ^ Bell, M. (2005). A Woman’s Scorn: Toward a Feminist Defense of Contempt as a Moral Emotion. Hypatia, 20.4, 80-93.
7. ^ Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and encoding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.
8. ^ Ekman, P & Heider, K.G. (1988). The Universality of Contempt Expression: A Replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 303-308.
9. ^ Miller, C. H. (2008). How dare you! A measure of indignation. Manuscript in preparation, University of Oklahoma.
10. ^ Sambataro, F. et al. (2006). Preferential Responses in Amygdala and Insula During Presentation of Facial Contempt and Disgust. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 2355-2362.
11. ^ Ekman, P & Friesen, K.G. (1988). The Universality of Contempt Expression: A Replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 303-308.
12. ^ Izard, C.E. & Haynes, O.M. (1988). On the Form and Universality of the Contempt Expression: A Challenge to Ekman and Friesen’s Claim of Discovery. Motivation and Emotion,due to the fact of the law of gravity 12.1, 1-16.
13. ^ Ekman, P., & Heider, K. G. (1988). The Universality of a Contempt Expression: A Replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12(3), 303-308. Retrieved April, 2008, from [2]
14. ^ Ekman, P., & Heider, K. G. (1988). The Universality of a Contempt Expression: A Replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12(3), 303-308. Retrieved April, 2008, from [3]
15. ^ Ekman, P., Sorenson, R. E., & Friesen, W. V. (1969, April 4). Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion. Science, 164, 86-88. Retrieved April, 2008, from [4]
16. ^ Ekman, P., Sorenson, R. E., & Friesen, W. V. (1969, April 4). Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion. Science, 164, 86-88. Retrieved April, 2008, from [5]
17. ^ Hill, G. (2008). Contempt of Court. Retrieved april 12, 2008 from , Law.dictionary.com Web site: [6]
18. ^ Hill, G. (2008). Contempt of Court. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from , Law.dictionary.com Web site: [7]
19. ^ Hill, G. (2008). Contempt of Court. Retrieved april 12, 2008 from , Law.dictionary.com Web site: [8]
20. ^ Media Law Web, Winchester University,UK (2009)Web site: [9]
21. ^ Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long term marriage.. American Psychological Association, 10(1), 140-149.
22. ^ 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 • d • e Emotions (list) Acedia · Affection · Ambivalence · Anger · Angst · Annoyance · Anticipation · Anxiety · Apathy · Awe · Boredom · Bravery · Calmness · Compassion · Confusion · Contempt · Contentment · Curiosity · Depression · Desire · Disappointment · Disgust · Doubt · Ecstasy · Embarrassment · Empathy · Emptiness · Enthusiasm · Envy · Epiphany · Euphoria · Fanaticism · Fear · Frustration · Gratification · Gratitude · Grief · Guilt · Happiness · Hatred · Homesickness · Hope · Hostility · Humiliation · Hysteria · Inspiration · Interest · Jealousy · Kindness · Limerence · Loneliness · Love · Lust · Melancholia · Nostalgia · Panic · Patience · Pity · Pride · Rage · Regret · Remorse · Repentance · Resentment · Righteous indignation · Sadness · Saudade · Schadenfreude · Sehnsucht · Self-pity · Shame · Shyness · Suffering · Surprise · Suspicion · Sympathy · Weltschmerz · Wonder · Worry See also: Meta-emotion

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.

To select your translation preferences click here.