[EGreg]

Because political activism takes a stance on a political issue. Simply being born in a country and playing chess does not.

Banning people because they don't agree with your politics is exactly what Saudi is doing.

No, it is what Israel is doing and Mozilla is doing as well. And Germany is doing with Nazi party, and so on. All are going to say it's because the given issue is that major for them. But what Saudi is doing is banning someone for being born in a country. Playing chess has nothing to do with agreeing with someone's politics.

[abusoufiyan]

So if playing chess has nothing to do with agreeing with someone's politics why is it okay to ban people for disagreeing with your state's politics?

It isn't. Israel is doing it. Saudi Arabia is retaliating. There isn't a BDS on Saudi Arabia though, so they ban players from Israel. Being born in a country is one thing, but all Israelis (all Jewish, 18+ year old Israelis) also participate in the IDF and along with that they are a bit more complicit in any human rights violations they may commit and in furthering the political agenda of Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory as a result.

[bhouston]

> Saudi Arabia is retaliating.

Technically that isn't true. Modern Saudi Arabia is discriminatory when it comes to other religions.

[EGreg]

Didn't I just explain it?

Being born in a country and playing chess is not "disagreeing with your state's politics".

And even that description is purposely flippant, and doesn't capture the real main reason why eg Mozilla fired its CEO or Germany bans the Nazi party. Or why many countries ban seditious speech (China, Jordan, and so on).

The reason is that they consider such speech to be dangerous to the security of the state itself. In that, if it spreads, it will undermine the current stability of the state. Also there are considerations from human rights point of view - that people could be threatened and suffer. For example gay partnes might have their equal right to visit each other in the hospital infringed. Israelis would be attacked as they were in Hebron in 1929. Nazis could wreak havoc and go on murderous rampages again. And so on.

What happened to freedom of speech? Well, it's not absolute in many places.

And anyway, equating Saudi Arabia to Israel on freedom of speech is rather silly. Israel allows all religions to come and worship openly. Saudis suppress all non-Muslim religions, and outlaw many types of observance. Israel allows gays to openly hold parades, and much more. Saudi Arabia executes gays and atheists for exactly that. A bit beyond "banning" for "disagreeing with politics". So keep a sense of proportion when you equate things.

Earlier this year for instance: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-ar...