"For I am a billionaire. Destroyer of worlds. And you will tremble before me... Dad, they're not trembling."

Is it too much to hope that Lachlan Murdoch might go swirling down the giant novelty defamation toilet with Ben Roberts-Smith and Christian Porter? This week’s legal rocket wasn’t the first salvo fired at Crikey from the thinnest-skinned Murdoch. It’s apparently the fourth in two years. But this one felt like one of those poorly aimed Russian rockets that keep falling on Ukrainian primary schools or retirement homes for aged guide dogs.

Crikey’s sin was to publish a Bernard Keane column that tagged the Murdoch family as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the US Capitol riots on January 6. Lachie, the News Corp Death Star’s junior Sith Lord of the Week for every week running since brother James fell into that trash compactor, wasn’t named in the piece. Unlike his old man, however, he hasn’t internalised the personal mantra that living well on top of a gigantic Matterhorn made entirely of bulging money bags is the best revenge.

Australia’s defamation laws were designed to protect the interest of nineteenth-century gentlemen hypocrites, and until recently, they did a pretty good job of looking after their 21st-century descendants. But as Roberts-Smith, Porter, and ambulant über tuber Peter Dutton can attest, the days may have passed when a chap could sool his barrister onto some mouthy peasant or upstart scribbler confident that the Law would crush them like bugs.

Dutton most likely did not foresee the ease and enthusiasm with which thousands of people would kick into Shane Bazzi’s online fundraising campaign, enabling the unmoneyed activist to hire the sort of legal talent that was once the preserve of former Queensland coppers with extensive property portfolios.

Like Dutton, Murdoch the Younger seems especially aggrieved that his opponents are not already suffering in their jocks; even worse, they appear to be making money off his legal action.

Beyond a small explosion in subscriber numbers at Crikey, another problem looms for Lachie.

While Fox News is not yet an indicted co-conspirator in the attempted coup of January 6, there’s a half-decent case to be made that it totally fucking should be. And while the family’s courtiers have been out beating the drum, insisting that they all find Trump to be the most dreadful fellow, the family’s bank vaults are still as full as a golden goog with the profits they’ve made from servicing the market for violent sedition and foaming-at-the-dick Trumpaphilia.

These facts should be easy to establish in any court. I can hear m’learned colleague for the respondent now.

“Let’s first examine your balance sheets, Mister Murdoch. And then we’ll have a look at your programming.”

Brian Toohey, the veteran editor and investigative journalist, always said the best defence against being sued was the threat of dragging the bastards onto the witness stand and forcing them to tell the truth or face perjury charges.

What happens when Lachie takes the stand, and the questions start coming about editorial meetings at Fox News before and after January 6? Does he sit in the box, smiling faintly, smelling of cologne and sandalwood, gently rubbing his smooth billionaire hands together, the skin as soft as chamois leather as he contemplates the ruin about to descend on Crikey? Or does his mouth dry up like he’s been sucking on ashtrays, and all of his teeth fall out of his face like dead birds after a forest fire? I dunno. But I’m super keen to find out how many News Corp emails and memos about the insurrection Crikey’s lawyers can turn up in discovery.

As thousands of rioters piled up at the barricades and hundreds more stormed through Congress, did the Murdochs have any discussions with their network executives about what to do? It’s hard to imagine a wrinkled old geezer-demon like Rupert keeping his claws out of that mess.

You can see why Crikey might be keen to meet them in court.