

Your thesis missed one important element right here:
As if the ability to restrict the creativity of others is a natural right like the freedom of speech.
Practically or legally speaking there isn’t a restriction of creativity. Its a restriction on the ability to profit from that creativity or negatively affect the profits of the rights holder with your work using their name.
If you call yourself the Burger King in your kitchen, there’s no trademark infringement there. However, if you start selling you food and calling yourself the Burger King, then that is a trademark violation. If you want to write Twilight fan fiction using the characters and story lines from the books, you’re free to do so. There is no copyright violation. However, if you want to profit from your expansions to another author’s work, you have to rename the characters and setting and call it “Fifty shades of grey”.
There is a reason respect for copyrights is at an all time low.
I’ll agree with this though. Large rights holders have been able to get changes to law that exceed the original IP mandates. This means extensions wildly beyond what was reasonable before, or getting things protected by IP law that are questionable at best.
I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying.
Are you saying you’re having trouble with dry & sarcastic humor or are you saying the events of the days we’re living in are so farcical that you’re having difficulty determining truth from fictional statements someone says to you?