Most states provide other protections as well. It is generally grounds for a lawsuit, for example, if someone intrudes on your private domain by eavesdropping electronically or wiretapping. The law also prohibits using a celebrity's name in advertising without permission. A cereal company cannot claim or suggest that Michael Jordan enjoys its product unless Mr. Jordan agrees. A newspaper can be sued if, for example, it prints a photograph of two famous people at dinner and wrongly implies that they are romantically involved.
Many states also restrict public disclosure of private facts, even if what is said is true.
The free-speech arguments being heard in the aftermath of Diana's death have, of course, already been used against these existing laws. And in general, courts have concluded that such privacy protections do not violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not an absolute, courts have said, and it allows states some room to restrict speech in the interest of safeguarding privacy. Even if trespass law interferes with what the press would like to do, it is hardly unconstitutional, and commercial exploitation of celebrities' names can be banned without offending the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said surprisingly little about those questions.