The controversy deepened on Tuesday in Paris, where Twitter told a judge that it needed the green light of an American court before it could disclose who was using hashtags like #unbonjuif (“a good Jew”) and #siJetaisNazi (“if I was a Nazi”).

The lawsuit came about as Jewish student groups asked a court to force Twitter to comply with the country’s laws against hate speech. The French government is not directly involved in the case, but a senior Minister told the newspaper Le Monde that Twitter “has every interest in adapting to the legal, philosophic and ethical culture of the countries where they want to do business.”

The situation places Twitter in a bind. On one hand, the country is obliged to comply with the laws of the countries in which it operates. But on the other hand, the French legal request goes against the First Amendment and the company’s commitment to stand up for its users’ voice.

The actual hashtag situation is unpleasant too. French tabloid L’express reports that last Sunday, the Nazi tag was “trending” on Twitter with more than 1,200 tweets — the same number as the number of tweets about actor and tax refugee Gerard Depardieu. Here is one violent example (many other Twitter users responded to these tweets by denouncing the hashtag):

#SiJetaisNazi j’lancerai la Nuke sur Israel

— Call me Pretty Boy. (@Z_ouu) January 5, 2013

The difference is that the U.S. has a legal culture where “the strongest weapon against hateful speech … is more speech” while European laws seek to use speech laws to curb racism. Unfortunately, as happened in my native Canada, hate speech laws can also become a way for groups to censor political views they don’t like.

Now the question is whether the French judge will buy Twitter’s claim that it needs permission from a U.S. court to identify the anti-Semites. According to a source familiar with the case, Twitter’s legal theory is based on the fact that the user profiles are on servers in America. But this is unlikely to work.

“The French courts have a reasonable basis for taking jurisdiction if the material is transmitted or received in France; I think that they are likely to take jurisdiction,” said Stephen Scott, a constitutional law expert at McGill University. He added that the French government’s attitude will be, “if you want to play on our rink, you play by our rules.”

Twitter could still hold out if it loses, of course. But Scott says this could lead French authorities to target Twitter’s assets and operations in Paris as a source of leverage. If Twitter simply decamped, the French would conceivably have to consider China-style restrictions on Twitter.

Twitter provided the following statement:

“Twitter does not moderate content. We adhere to the laws of the countries in which we operate and have clear rules and terms of service that govern user behavior on the platform. If we are alerted to content that may be in violation of our terms of service, we will investigate each report and respond according to the policies and procedures outlined in our support pages. You can find the Twitter Rules here: twitter.com/rules and additional support information here: support.twitter.com.”

(Image by  ollyy via Shutterstock)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The 2013 task management tools market
• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Examining the rise of crowd labor platforms in 2012

In a blog post on Wednesday, Google said it has resolved a long-running dispute with Belgian newspapers that have demanded copyright fees every time Google displays a link or excerpts to one of their stories. Google’s announcement says the parties are “collaborating” to make money but also takes pains to note that “we are not paying the Belgian publishers or authors to include their content in our services”. Oh, really?

US press outlets have noted Google is paying all the legal fees but have generally framed the deal as a tie or a win for Google. The Europeans, however, have been less gracious. Le Monde‘s triumphant account begins by explaining that the Belgian papers “forced Google to bend” and that Google will “compensate” papers and journalists to the tune of “2 to 3 percent of sales” — or “around 5 million euros” ($6.5 million).

So what exactly happened? Did Google pay up or not? The solution to the mystery lies in a part of the blog post where Google explains the ways it will work with the papers, including: “Google will advertise its services on the publishers’ media.” In other words, the American search giant appears to have bought millions of dollars of advertising in the hopes of staving off a direct copyright levy. The company did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

On its face, this is not a bad deal for Google. Given the anti-American regulatory climate in Europe, the company had a weak hand to play. Paying $6 millon to end the Belgian headache may be a good investment, especially as the company can still claim (technically at least) that it still does not pay copyright fees for newspaper excerpts.

The danger, of course, is that the rest of Europe will soon be beating a path to Google’s door demanding similar payouts. As we’ve noted, France and Germany are already kicking up dust over the copyright issue too (so is Brazil). The Le Monde story will only embolden them.

In the bigger picture, European news publishers would be better served by dropping the half-baked copyright claims (Google’s fair use case for excerpts is strong) and getting on with the painful process of digitization. The continent has wonderful newspapers but the ongoing prevalence of print is astounding compared to North America.

(Image by Sergey Mironov via Shutterstock)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

Lombard, who ran the company between 2005 and 2010, was placed under formal investigation by the French authorities on Wednesday and bailed for €100,000 ($125,000).

The allegations stem back to a year two-year period when 35 employees killed themselves. While that number is below the national average for a company of 165,000 employees, critics have pinpointed Lombard’s management culture and decisions as one of the reasons for the deaths — and in particular on his so-called “NEXT” program, an efficiency drive and restructuring that cut more than 22,000 jobs over a short time and made managers change jobs every three years.

Many of those who died left notes blaming pressure at work for their actions.

Pressure from unions and politicians meant that Lombard was forced to step down from his job earlier than expected, and his successor rapidly ended the NEXT program.

But while critics say that his actions created a bullying culture that left many employees feeling desperate and depressed, Lombard — who has called the affair a “social crisis” — took to the pages of Le Monde to defend himself.

In an article published on Wednesday, he argued that while the deaths were a “tragedy” they were not closely linked to the cutbacks, which were necessary for the health of the business:

I realize that upheavals in the company could cause shocks or disturbances. But I strongly doubt that these essential plans for the survival of the company were the cause of these human tragedies.

Lombard’s lawyers, meanwhile, said it was a “stunning accusation” to be investigated over the deaths of people he never met.

If found guilty of harassment, Lombard faces up to a year in prison and a fine of €15,000.

Photograph of Didier Lombard used under Creative Commons license courtesy of World Economic Forum

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Podcast: Mobile winners and losers in 2012 and what to expect in 2013
• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications

News coming from Paris tells of a fresh initiative to bring free wireless access to public transport, bringing the city’s offering more in line with its cross-channel rival.

Thanks to WiFi provider GOWEX, a range of different public spaces across Paris will now have free wireless access — including railway stations, some RER commuter lines, and bus stops. It also includes three Metro stations: Place-d’Italie, Pont-de-Sèvres and Chaussée-d’Antin.

As Le Monde reports, it’s not perfect. But something, surely, is better than nothing:

The company claims that its service will eventually be deployed to other stations.

Access will only be possible in the stations themselves, not inside moving trains. Users wishing to use the free GOWEX service on their tablet or phone will have to install an application that states the rate will be 1Mbps.

There is already WiFi for some Metro travelers, thanks to an initiative from telco SFR that covers 50 stations. But that’s only for subscribers — not everyone. This move is much more like London, which is working with Virgin Media ahead of the Olympics to provide free access across some 80 underground stations.

And this is a trend that’s not just on one side of the Atlantic, either. On Tuesday Google and Boingo teamed up to provide a similar service in six NYC stations in what’s being called “the summer of free Wi-Fi”. Some of the connectivity was already in place, but it’s an interesting move — although the implication of the marketing push is that when the summer comes to an end, so will the giveaway.

Image courtesy of Flickr User bredgur

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• LTE-Advanced: what it is and isn’t