Nothing is off the table, which can mean anything, can mean little Jimmy can bring a handgun and shoot up a school, Bob can take his Ferrari out for a spin, do 90 on the freeway and commit manslaughter. Now yes, those previous examples are against the law, but my point here is semantics. Sure you can say whatever the hell you want, doesn't mean it's right. I can say to little Jimmy that it's okay to beat and torture that dying deer towards a long painful death, and technically speaking I won't be legally accountable for anything. Does it make it right? Fuck no, it's fucking sick. So while yes, technically speaking anything is on the table, it doesn't make what is said right or justifiable. And yes, I'm going to compare my last example with encouraging suicide because they are on a similarly unethical levels. It doesn't matter what veil you cover it with, the message is disturbed. Yes, he's a shock jock, I get it, but his label really doesn't excuse what he did. Whether his intent is to entertain or not, it's still important to be aware of how far he's going, whether he personalty agrees with it or not. That is because words will have consequences, the speaker's perception will never be the same as the listener. Encouraging suicide, regardless of the veil is deplorable, I don't see any other way around that. If people find humor in that, well great, good for them. The real ironic thing is, for whatever reason he tries to make himself out to be the victim. That speaks volumes more than Antrhocon banning him. And again, I'm not endorsing him to be censored, that's not right either, but his reaction to it could use some work, to put it lightly.