While you and I were grilling outside and applauding fireworks this weekend, a Hickory, N.C., mom was busy fighting a (very) public battle with Facebook.

The fracas started when Jill White and a friend were at the beach with their daughters. White, a photographer, snapped a photo of her friend's daughter pulling down her two-year-old daughter's swimsuit and revealing part of her bum. (It was White's attempt to recreate the sunscreen company's famous logo of a dog pulling down a girl's bathing suit bottom.) Pleased with the results, she posted it to Coppertone's Facebook page. "We thought it would be cute because of the old Coppertone ad and her tan line looked like that," Jill White told WBTV.

But not every agreed. According to the DailyMail, after receiving complaints that the sliver of exposed skin was offensive, Facebook censors gave the photographer-mom three choices: remove the picture, change her privacy settings so the picture wasn't public, or ignore the warning altogether. White promotes her photography business on Facebook, so going private wasn't an option. Neither was taking down the picture. "No way did I think it would fit the criteria of nudity or pornography, and if you read the terms of use in settings, nowhere does it state that this would be considered either," she explains. So she chose to ignore.

Facebook responded by slapping her with a 24-hour ban from the site. When the ban expired, White reposted the picture, this time with a smiley face emoji emblazoned across the offending area. Users still complained, but because the little girl was covered up, Facebook let the photo stand.

White has since defended her actions and the photo, saying, "I despise pornography and anything to do with it. I would never ever post a pornographic photo. I am anti-porn." Meanwhile, the social media giant insists it didn't consider the original photo pornographic and only removed it because the toddler's bum was exposed.

Personally, when it comes to figuring out whether something is pornographic or unseemly, I tend to side with former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said, "I know it when I see it." And to be honest, nothing about White's picture fails my gut test. While I tend to be super-private about what I post on Facebook, especially when it comes to my son, I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing a photo like this one. White's friend signed off on it, and besides, it captured a sweet moment two friends had at the beach. I think it all boils down to intent, and it's obvious that the picture wasn't meant to be anything but an innocent recreation.

Tell us: Would you post a photo like this one on Facebook? Do you think Facebook was right to remove the original picture?

Don't want to miss out on the latest baby news? Be sure to like All About Babies on Facebook!

Photo of girls courtesy of Jill White via Facebook