On any other day, the scene would have shocked me. But this time, not so much. An armed police officer was standing at the door of a house of worship.

I was driving past the Beth Israel Synagogue in Waterville. Dozens of cars were parked outside. A Waterville city police officer stood by the door. First thing I noticed was that the synagogue was oddly busy for noon on Sunday. Next thing was the police officer. What have we come to that police must guard a house of worship?

Beth Israel’s website reports the synagogue’s annual meeting was on Sunday, just as the annual meeting of the Maine Conference of the United Church of Christ (Congregational) had been held the previous day in Saco. At our meeting — I’m a lay delegate to the Congregationalist meeting — we had heard quickly about the shootings in Pittsburgh.

I’m certain we were all aware we were doing something at First Parish in Saco similar to what the Jews in Pittsburgh had been doing when the shooting began. We were gathered at a house of worship, keeping our faith. But the Jews had been targeted. We had not. At least not this time. There but for the grace of God . . .

Many have written already that the Tree of Life murders show a society gone coarse over the past few years. Our brains do not operate in isolation from what’s going on around us. So it is easy to link speech to violence. I can’t imagine someone simply going out to kill a person without having heard something that suggested a killing was in order.

But it isn’t easy to directly link a specific statement to a specific violent act. Still, it should be easy to understand that violence happens where violence is encouraged and violence doesn’t happen where it is not part of the conversation. It may be a matter of what is in the conversation and who feels free to say what.

When I taught at the University of Maine and at UMF, I often recited the First Amendment to students. Its 45 words seem clear. “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.”

Over the past few years, concern for free speech has changed homes. It used to be a core issue for progressives. Then progressives brought us “political correctness,” in which it becomes a no-no to say some things and in which words used for decades are judged insensitive. Sometimes the change in language helps, often not. Now the people pushing hard for free speech tend to be in the alt-right. At least for their own speech.

A great many of these so-called free-speech advocates rail that Google and Facebook and others are “censoring speech.” These “free-speechers” are unaware of the public-private distinction or intentionally ignore it. The Constitution forbids only the government from restricting speech. Private entities, be they Facebook or gab.com, are free to control the flow of speech through their pages as they see fit. I lament that few of these private servers see fit to restrict the most incendiary postings by their users.

Robert Bowers, arrested for the murders at Tree of Life, had posted often on gab.com. On Saturday morning, just before he drove to the synagogue, he posted that he was “going in.” Anyone knows what that means, especially in the violent context in which Bowers often posted, but gab.com founder Andrew Torba denied that.

“We have been smeared by the mainstream media for defending free expression and individual liberty for all people and for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed at Pittsburgh,” his press release said.

He could have said it was clear that Bowers intended evil but that the posting was unclear as to where or how. If Torba really wanted to work with law enforcement, his website would have screeners who could identify the poster and call police. Chances are slim that police could have stopped Bowers, but at least they would have had an opportunity to try. As it was, Torba’s website stood silent.

“With great power comes great responsibility.” Most of us heard that on “Spiderman,” but something much like it originated about 1789 with Voltaire. These websites run from responsibility. They don’t police the wide-open condemnation of anyone or any idea that doesn’t perfectly fit the site user’s own point of view. This morphs pretty easily into giving oneself permission to say or do just about anything.

Such as refer to reporters trying to get the entire and unvarnished story as “enemies of the people.” Joseph Stalin said that about the press. Mao Zedong said that about the press. Adolph Hitler said that about the press. All made sure, when they seized power, to root out the free press in their dictatorships.

When one has given oneself permission to say and do just about anything, “because I could” becomes the explanation for bad actions. That’s how Bill Clinton explained having an affair with a White House intern. In setting out the standard of “because I could,” he opened a way for others to obey their worst instincts. We too easily forget that often we suffer (usually later, though) when we take the easy way out.

Clinton was not alone in doing the wrong thing because he could. He heard the siren voice and went for it. Jimmy Swaggart disgraced himself as a preacher by following a siren voice. Stephen Paddock murdered 59 people at a concert in Las Vegas. Because he could. We have a president whose family motto could easily be, “Because I could.”

It’s not just the high and mighty. How many of us have stolen from our employer? The boss wasn’t using that hammer, and I can use it. Told a lie because we knew we could get away with it? Cheated a store whose clerk undercharged by mistake? Because we could.

Bob Neal believes America needs to be better than this. And can be.