<p>This study analyzes how judges argue for the legally salient properties of a criminal event through the lens of visual jurisprudence. It focuses on how viral video footage provides pertinent justifications for courts to interpret the legal notion of speech crime. The analysis centers around an Indonesian blasphemy case of Basuki<i> ‘</i>Ahok’ Tjahaya Purnama, in which a viral video showing him, as the governor of Jakarta, misusing a Quranic verse during a public consultation. Amid the surge of Islamic populism, Ahok, a Christian of Chinese descent who was running for re-election, was then convicted of blasphemy on the basis of the content of the viral video. Building the argument on Susan Haack’s foundherentism, we contend that the exposure of the viral video has been able to shape a distinct epistemology of evidence, bringing legal scripts into imaginal politics. In this framework, while religious blasphemy has been traditionally tied up with verbal utterance, the case illustrates, as a matter of evidentiary structure, how the elements of virality and visual imagery have been able to induce legal decision-makers’ perceptual experience of resentment. Epistemologically, the legally salient properties of an event generated from virality and visuality may obscure the boundaries between lay persons’ habit of perception and legal professional practices.</p>