Where there is no harm, there can be no foul.
Also, this is speaking in a way that might sound like some referencing some legal standard, or being an exhaustive or overwhelming philosophical analysis. But, even were these assertions true, I suggest that the argument is missing the issue raised.
Specifically, the image used as an example of 'ok' in one part of the Imgur policy document arguably hits all over the specific language of the harassment section of the same document. See quoted parts.
It seems an incredibly poor example to choose, and it's arguably a renewed instance of harassing image posting by their own definitions.
(yes, yes, I'm aware of the concept of "natural rights", I've read the Second Treatise, blah blah—it's a pretty idea, but it's weak, to put it mildly)
AFAIK they can stand up, kinda, if you have some foundational rules at the bottom that you're taking as divinely-revealed and unquestionable. Otherwise, not so much.
They're a good rhetorical tool and a nice shorthand for "thing we care about a lot", but I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to treat them as for-real real, to any greater degree than anything else we guard with laws and norms. Again, if you've got info that might change my mind, do share—it'd be really handy if they were real.