How Damaging is Clinton v Jones to Trump's Defense Against Various Lawsuits?
Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Clinton v. Jones, that rule is that the president lacks immunity, regardless of where he is sued. Thus, Clinton v. Jones is indeed very damaging to Trump's defense against the various lawsuits against him on the basis of his pre-presidential conduct.
Hate Speech Is Free Speech, But Maybe It Shouldn't Be
Given enough time, a movement to treat hate speech as beyond the pale, perhaps as part of a backlash against Trumpism, could result in political changes and transformative judicial appointments that redefine the protections of the First Amendment.
In a civil suit against Trump for inciting violence at a campaign rally, Trump's lawyer argues that Trump is immune from suit as President of the United States (citing Clinton v. Jones). His argument is not simply wrong. It is sanctionable.
When Free Speech Suits the President
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a suit alleging that President Trump incited violence against protesters at one of his campaign rallies last year. The bitter irony to Trump's defense is that it seeks to expand free speech rules; usually, he prefers to trash them.