It is reprehensible that you should be barred from expressing any given opinion.
If your own opinion were itself reprehensible then the appropriate response would be to eloquently deny it or, where this cannot be done, express personal disavowal.
This forum does not ban people for expressing their opinions, only if they spam or use the forum for severely unethical and illegal purposes.
Regarding your views on life and suicide, you say a few things which lead to some ambiguity, at least in my understanding of them.
You seem to say that life is objectively meaningless and purposeless and also that you personally find no subjective meaning or purpose. I am wondering if you are convinced of the impossibility of you ever finding such a subjective meaning or purpose? Perhaps you might not like to use the terms meaning or purpose except in objective contexts, in which case I would ask, can you not find something gripping and desirable in life which would severely outweigh premature death on the balance of options?
Personally I think that it is eminently obvious that there are circumstances in which suicide is not only appropriate, but perhaps even necessary. The most obvious example is a person who is terminally and degeneratively ill, who has no prospect for living much longer and their standard of living during that period will be negligable to negative. The only reason that I can see for them to not commit suicide is if they have hope that in their short life some cure may rear its head, or at least something to alleviate their suffering. Either that, or if they have some unfinished business which they are grittily determined to finish. Though, once it is finished, or if it is not possible for them to do so, all that is then left is hope. If someone has such hope, I do not see how they can be criticised for clinging to it for as long as they are able. If someone does not have such hope, then on what grounds can others criticise them for abandoning their life? It is because they themselves hold such hope, and they are greedily determined to cling to it to such a degree that they will call another person's act greedy and unjust, when in truth it is a prime example of something done for the self quite justly.
Pulling this away, now, from the most extreme example, is a person who is not due to soon die, but is living in suffering. Their prospects for the end of their suffering are increased, and so people may think themselves more justified in interfering, either directly or by carping at them, though there is no greater justification for interference. For sure, the person is more likely to be hopeful and 'stay the course', but it is their gamble to make, not someone elses. Any living that might follow from submission to someone else's will that we should live would be somewhat hollow. Certainly, they will obtain a deep responsibility toward the person who has so submitted to them.
Aside from incurable diseases there are innumerable other reasons why a person may be living in suffering and seek the 'way out' (which as you say is no way out since the self does not go anywhere, it simply ceases to be). Buddhism states that 'Being is suffering' and this may well be true, but whether it is suffering enough to warrant the immanentisation of death is another matter. The World is over-populated. We might, then, think that those who choose to reduce this population, with no harm to others, are to be commended. The opposite is true though. Why?
Quite often with someone who is suffering the prospect of ending that suffering is somewhat like Baron von Munchausen pulling himself from the swamp by his own hair. They cannot see the path to their salvation, can probably not even see what their salvation is, or that there is one. Even if they see the route, they may not have the means, or the mental energy to go through with it. Before we can scorn the people who might choose the way out, we must first attempt to alleviate their suffering, provide them with the means to do so. Otherwise we are scorning people for being in a Catch-22 situation which we ourselves perpetuate, we are scorning because hate and contempt are the easy things to do. It is because it is hard to accept that the way of life that we are committed to may actually be causing people harm to such a degree that they would prefer death above the way of life that we have, for people to accept this is impossible, and so those who would choose death must be dismissed as contemptible abberations.
I do not know whether there is some solution to your suffering, do not know if there is a solution for any persons suffering, am unsure about the route out of those parts of my life that cause my own suffering. I would prefer that you not choose death, and if you instead tried for some time longer to see if you can be filled in the ways that you are currently not, if you can become thrilled at the pleasures and joys that you may have developed a learned helplessness in regard to, and so rejected as possibilities or as even desirable, but I know that this preference on my part is wholly selfish, because I would like to believe in hope for both you and myself, and will not criticise you for making whatever choice is your own.
[EDIT: I forgot to mention another form of suicide, the suicide as protest. One of my personal heroes is Thích Quảng Ðức, the Buddhist monk who famously self-immolated during the Vietnam war. In the face of immovable oppression the only hope may be to submit, give in and die. If one can make this death hold bearing on the lives of other people then, even if we are not around to enjoy the fruits of our actions, we may as well add such effects rather than not]