The right of nature does not validate torture, and the law of nature, which counsels a search for peace in so far forth as others seek peace too, prohibits it. With apologies for the confessional tone, however, I don't feel the same force when the context is changed to cyberspace, and as I've indicated I don't even find that the minimal constraints of Hobbes's right of nature get a grip on the Net. Addresses on the Net are the responsibility of individuals, and apart from some form of contract those individuals are under no obligation, beyond real-life obligations to persons as opposed to characters or similar users, to treat someone who has logged in to the address in this way or that. If they wish, they do nothing wrong in their domain of cyberspace to let Mr. Bungle loose, even if we think less of them for administrating a sick site. They violate no one's rights, because no rights have been constructed at those sites.
Rights are constructive in cyberspace, natural in real-life.
And the edifice of Responsiveness, Caring, and Light hovers in mid-air without the support of Respect. These higher considerations are constructive too. And absent construction of the rights and the reality of individual characters, the higher- level constructions that presuppose them cannot begin. The sick site is one that doesn't take its users seriously. It doesn't care whether they can make a meaningful virtual life there, or whether it responds to their reality, or whether they can form a valuable community there.