"The writer who was offended should have expressed their discomfort directly to Mosley so they could have a mature discussion," Abdul-Jabbar writes in The Hollywood Reporter in reaction to Mosley's New York Times essay on his departure from the CBS All Access drama. "The offended writer should have asked themselves a few questions about whether or not taking offense was a legitimate response to a black man telling a story that happened to him and quoting the dialogue used. Clearly, the story has much more visceral impact — which was Mosley’s point — when you hear the actual word being spoken so cavalierly by a police officer. And why was there no offense taken to the use of the derogatory 'paddy'? Finally, one has to question the ability of that writer to produce complex and layered characters and themes if they lack the sophistication to understand all that. HR’s response is predictable because their language policy, like so many other rules in the workplace and schools, is based on the one-size-fits-all condom of policies: zero tolerance. 'Zero tolerance' sounds like a strict ethical stance, but in reality it’s a lazy position created so institutions can appear culturally sensitive while really just trying to legally cover their asses. However, zero tolerance in anything related to free speech is antithetical to democracy and is destructive to promoting open discussions about important issues."