Hitler’s House Seizure Backed by Court Amid Nazi Shrine Fears – NBCNews.com

A stone outside Adolf Hitler’s birthplace reads: “For peace, freedom and democracy, never again fascism, millions of dead are a warning.” LEONHARD FOEGER / Reuters

In December, the government said they planned to remodel the building and turn it into a home for disabled people.

“Instead of demolishing history, we want to create an antithesis to the Nazi regime,” Josef Puehringer, governor of the state of Upper Austria, said at the time.

The government, which has been renting the house since 1972, was using it as a center for people with disabilities. But the organization using the building vacated after the owner refused to carry out necessary renovations.

Pommer’s lawyer, Gerhard Lebitsch, told NBC News his client would likely take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Lebitsch also said his client had gone to school in Braunau am Inn and had lived in the house for several years.

“There are many personal memories attached to the house,” he said.

Lebitsch separately told reporters his client felt the states purchase offers were too low.

The offers regarding the purchasing price were half-hearted, he said. At best it was the sale value of a regular house. There were never any serious talks. Always everything got blocked.

Andy Eckardt reported from Berlin. Carlo Angerer reported from Warsaw. Saphora Smith reported from London.

See the original post here:

Hitler’s House Seizure Backed by Court Amid Nazi Shrine Fears – NBCNews.com

Related Post

July 1, 2017   Posted in: Hitler |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."