Have you noticed the rush to defend University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's outrageous, seditious, contemptuous, evil blood libels against America on the basis of "freedom of speech"?

This is disturbing to me. Once again, it illustrates the way we as Americans are losing our ability to distinguish between right and wrong, the way we are moving toward moral relativism, the way we are becoming incapable of self-government.

In case you missed it, Churchill, a tenured professor and until recently chairman of the ethnic studies department at the university, came under fire for an essay he wrote after Sept. 11 – essentially blaming America and Americans for the attack. He said those killed at the World Trade Center and Pentagon deserved to die and praised the Islamist suicide hijackers as courageous warriors.

Now, in America, there is no question that someone has the right to make such ignorant and treacherous pronouncements. But what some of us are forgetting is that we also have a responsibility to endure the consequences of our speech and our actions.

That's what a free society is all about.

Some, such as Fox News Channel star Bill O'Reilly, even suggest the First Amendment somehow protects Churchill from the consequences of being fired from his teaching job at the university as a result of his fighting words.

This is a strange position for O'Reilly to take, given his strong and persistent condemnation of the University of South Florida for not taking quicker action a few years ago against professor Sami al-Arian, whose links with terrorists were worrisome but whose personal rhetoric was far less sympathetic to the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked America.

Why would O'Reilly lead the charge against al-Arian and defend Churchill?

Because O'Reilly is, like so many other Americans, misunderstanding the nature of freedom of speech and the First Amendment that protects it.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or write anything without consequences. It means the government can't prevent you from speaking or writing about what's on your mind. It does not suggest there can be no penalties for doing so – particularly in an irresponsible manner.

We have libel laws on the books, for example.

You cannot cry "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, for example.

And you can certainly be fired by your employer for bringing discredit upon it through your words and actions.

Ultimately, there is another potential consequence that needs to be considered in this unusual case.

We need to ask ourselves as a nation whether or not we still believe in the constitutional crime of treason.

When is a person guilty of sedition? Does he actually have to take up arms with the enemy? Does he actually have to strap bombs onto his body? Does he actually have to provide material support for the enemy? Or does he merely have to give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Did Ward Churchill give aid and comfort to the sworn enemies of the United States by proclaiming them heroes in their bloodthirsty attack on this country Sept. 11, 2001?

I think he clearly did. I think he clearly intended to do so. You can argue about the impact he may have had because of his level of obscurity. But had Churchill been able to make his proclamation heard throughout the entire world he clearly would have done so. He was striving to be heard. His intent was to undermine and hurt America. He proclaimed his sympathies and allegiance with the enemy.

I don't think it gets much more clear-cut than that.

If this be not treason, then we have lost the meaning of the word, we have scrapped the crime from our law books, we have stripped the term from our lexicon.

Yes, Churchill should be fired. Freedom of speech does not guarantee anyone a tenured, lifetime position at a taxpayer-supported university.

And, equally so, Churchill should be thoroughly investigated for aiding and abetting the enemy in wartime – a capital offense.