The so-called 'right of publicity' has the potential to mutate into another form of speech-stifling monopoly. Glad to see that the courts are getting it right in these instances.

Andy Griffith's trademark claims were also appropriately shot down. If reasonable people were actually confused that the television star was running for office, then I'd reconsider.

Freedom of speech doesn't sanction violation of another's privacy in order to reveal another's secrets. Even a convicted burglar upon release from sentence still doesn't become free to reveal what they've seen or read in their victim's home.

However, if someone tells you their secrets in confidence, then you have right to betray that confidence (with loss of respect/reputation only), but it is not an unethical speech-stifling monopoly for a private citizen to possess a monopoly on their unshared secrets.

There are some monopolies that are natural, and to be cherished.