Could Charles Oakley sue Knicks owner James Dolan for defamation?

Expert suggests he might have a case

The bad blood between former Knicks great Charles Oakley and Knicks owner James Dolan is going to continue. Oakley was forcibly ejected and placed under arrest last week after allegedly causing a disturbance courtside during the Knicks' loss to the Clippers at MSG, an allegation Oakley denies. Dolan blasted Oakley on a radio appearance Friday, earning him jeers from the internet as he issued a full ban on Oakley from the world's most famous arena. In doing so, he referred to a history of abusive behavior from Oakley and even suggested he may have an alcohol problem.

SI's legal expert, Michael McCann, wrote an article following up and tried to answer whether or not Oakley could actually sue Dolan for defamation, libel, or slander. The legal expert suggests that while it would be contentious, it's entirely possible that Oakley would have a case.

As noted above, working against Oakley in any defamation lawsuit would be the actual malice threshold--he would need to prove that Dolan knew or should have known his remarks about Oakley were untrue. However, certain types of statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se, which means they are presumed defamatory and overcome the actual malice standard. One such type is falsely accusing another person of committing a crime. Dolan did not quite do that. However, Dolan asserting that Oakley is "physically and verbally abusive" is consistent with claiming that Oakley engaged in unlawful behavior. Dolan, however, could emphasize that police arrested Oakley for assault and thus observing that Oakley is abusive would be consistent with Oakley's arrest.

As to Dolan saying that Oakley "may have a problem with alcohol," he selected his words carefully. Dolan used "may" rather than the definitive "does" and he added, "We're not sure." Then again, Dolan, when discussing Oakley's ban, referred to someone who "drink[s] too much alcohol" as one who can be subject to a ban. Whether such a link is sufficient to establish defamation remains to be seen.

The Knicks' statement on Wednesday provides another ground to Oakley for a potential defamation lawsuit. But it might not be a winnable ground. After all, telling the world that the team "hopes" Oakley "gets help soon" is fairly vague in that it doesn't specify the kind of "help" Oakley allegedly needs. For example, are the Knicks claiming that Oakley needs help on being a responsible fan? Or, does he need help on dealing with anger or alcohol issues? Or some combination thereof? The lack of precision helps the Knicks. Then again, the Knicks' ambiguous recommendation for Oakley arguably becomes more definable when considering Dolan's subsequent remarks about Oakley having anger and alcohol issues. If so, Oakley's potential claims would be strengthened.

Source: Charles Oakley could potentially sue James Dolan, Knicks | SI.com.

Taking on Dolan's army of lawyers in court probably isn't something Oakley's looking for, but it does show the degree to which Dolan toed the line in his controversial interview. The reality is that public sentiment continues to reside almost entirely with Oakley, and Dolan continues to serve up more negative attention in a time when the Knicks are basically a giant ball of negative energy rolling downhill and collecting more negative energy with each passing second.

We'll see what direction Oakley takes, but it does seem notable that the owner of the New York Knicks said things, on radio, that could at least provide grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Good times continue for the Knicks and their fans.