> The girl had removed her burning clothes before the photograph was taken.

Removing clothes after the napalm had burned through them (which was manifestly the case here) certainly may reduce the degree to which you are being burned by napalm, but does not mean you are no longer be burned by napalm.

> If I were to recreate the image by hiring actors, that would probably be considered child pornography.

Be considered by whom? Pornography requires more than simple nudity.

She may be burning during the photograph, but that is not obvious without the extra commentary.

> Pornography requires more than simple nudity.

Perhaps, but I can understand Facebook removing that photograph, just in case a judge thinks differently. Child pornography does not appear to be something the FBI takes lightly.

> that would probably be considered child pornography.

What on earth are you talking about? Is there anything even vaguely sexual about this photograph? Did I miss something?

I was not talking about the photograph in the article, but a hypothetical recreation. Even if a photographer were to explain such a recreation were a satire or had some artistic value, I think many people would feel uncomfortable with it. Certainly most would not want their children to pose for such a photograph.

From that thought experiment, I'm deducing that it's the historical context which makes the original photograph acceptable to distribute, and not anything intrinsic to the image.

I think this is actually an interesting art experiment. I wonder if anyone will try.

Yeah, the art is the question of whether or not such a thing would be illegal. Performance art, of a sort.