Probably too controversial for fedi...
But I'm so confused by the entire premise of the doordash girl saga, its legal to be naked anywhere in Seattle (well except the nude beach).
I've absolutely lost track of the total volume of unexpected naked people I've seen over the years.
I guess I've entirely forgotten my initial shock at casual nudity being legal and now I just kinda can't get worked up about a single incident of a housed, unconscious naked person existing in a private space.
This feels like one of those gender studies 101 thought experiments where you flip the genders of the actors and see if you read the situation the same:
And I'm going to imagine that if a delivery man filmed an unconscious nude woman in her own home while doing a delivery AND posted those non consensual nudes all over the internet.... repeatedly, he would probably be looking at serious charges 😅
Olivia (the doordash girl) will be in an Upstate New York court tomorrow facing several felony charges for making and repeatedly distributing non consensual nude images among other likely charges.
As usual its a developing story so more details may emerge, there's also a lot of AI slop and just plain low quality reporting floating around so probably best to actually see what's reported in court.
If there are good OTG court watch sources I'll try and update.
Small update in this #courtwatch story, the DoorDash driver who ended up filming and posting videos of a naked DoorDash customer has plead not guilty.
The driver's next court date is January 20th 2026.
So if you think you saw any new evidence in this case... your probably didn't! Most "new" evidence lately have been deceptive edits and AI slop.
The single best source of information right now have been the videos posted by the driver (which seem like a bad idea for me to post unedited 🥴) and a local news report which covers the police statements up to that point:
@nullagent Is there a more reliable source than The New York Post? Because everybody seems to be riffing on the same NY Post article that (deceptively) quotes a police press release:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26284591-henderson-press-release/
>The video, **along with the subsequent investigation**, indicates that the male was incapacitated and unconscious on his couch due to alcohol consumption.
The emphasized portion of the quote is left out of the NY Post story --- and most other sources riffing on it --- leading readers to believe that the intoxication is evident from observation alone.
Further, nothing else in the press release substantiates the NY Post's most serious allegation:
>However, Ring camera footage appears to show Henderson let herself into the man’s house, and police have said there is no indication she was encouraged to go in, let alone film.
In addition to this footage --- presumably from a neighbor, given that the raw footage the woman uploaded doesn't appear to have any Ring or other video doorbell near the customer's door --- I'm particularly interested in any notes or other communication she had with the customer via DoorDash.
Getting flashed may not constitute legal sexual assault --- it could be a "lesser" charge of indecent exposure --- but it's not unheard of in the delivery industry either. The "answer the door naked" trope exists for a reason.
Apologies I initially misread your post.
Yea I've found significant issues with most of the main stream reporting from Wired all the way to of course the NYPost.
So far imo the source videos posted by olivia herself are quite damning I would repost them BUT they require significantly more editing than I'm able to put in to make them safe/legal to share.
And for me that source materials is pretty telling.
Aside from Olivia's videos and the police statement not much is public
nullagent
Preston Maness â˜