or Hammer of Witches, written in 1848 by the Reverends Kramer and Spregner (the ,,beloved sons" of Pope Innocent VIII.) For three centuries this sadistic book lay on the bench of every judge, every witch hunte. In a long section on judicial proceedings, the instructions make it clear how the ,,hysteria" was set off: The job of initiating a witch trial was to be performed by either the Vicar (priest) or Judge of the County, who was to post a notice to direct, command, require and admonish that within the space of twelve days...that they should reveal it into us if anyone us if anyone know, see or have heard that any person is reporter to be a herectic or a witch, or if any is suspected especially of such practices as cause injury to men, cattle, or the frits ofthe earth, to the loss of the State.Anyone failing to report a witch faced both excommunication and a long list of temporal punishments.
dents from the truth" (Barhaugh, 2008). The term official censorship usually makes us think of bans on political or sex- ually explicit material, yet there is another common sort of official censorship that we don't think of in the same way, probably because it occurs after the fact. Often in a jury trial, a piece of evidence or testimony will be introduced, only to be ruled inadmissible by the presiding judge, who may then admonish the jurors to disre- gard that evidence. From this perspective, the judge may be viewed as a censor, though the form of the censorship is odd. The presentation of the information to the jury is not banned-too late for that-it's the jury's use of the information that is banned. How effective are such instructions from a judge? Is it possible that, for jury members who feel it is their right to consider all the available information, de-
annaabi.ee 
