Most editorials exude a sense of relief at the outcome of the Wilders trial.

Where most editorials maintain that the Wilders court case should never have happened, others are not so sure.
De Pers, which is heading its editorial with ‘He is ours again’ is speculating that things might have gone very differently for Wilders: ‘the law and jurisprudence left a margin for a guilty verdict’, the paper writes. It goes on to explain that Wilders – who was cleared of incitement to hatred and discrimination because he targeted a religion rather than those adhering to it – has not always been so careful to make the distinction. ‘Wilders has said he wants Muslims to leave the country and that Muslims pose a threat by leaving the cities and moving to the country. The court says: from the context it is clear that Wilders is not talking about people but about ideas and behaviour, which is allowed. But judges bent on a conviction could have taken a different route.’
And the distinction Wilders makes between Muslims and other citizens could, the paper says, be labelled discriminatory no matter what.
Much is made of the ‘context of the public debate’ in which Wilders the politician is free to make his comments. ‘The judges have effectively said that the heated debate about the multicultural society allows for heated language. But it is Wilders who is raising the temperature thereby creating for himself more verbal room to roam,’ de Pers notes.
The Volkskrant editorial – ‘Dutch freedom of speech extensive’ – briskly concurs with the verdict: the trial should never have happened and while Wilders overstepped the line of decency a guilty verdict would have ‘compromised politicians’ room for manoeuvring.’
In a final paragraph the paper calls on ‘those who have been calling themselves ‘the
injured parties’ to let things rest. ‘Their holy indignation alone will not be enough against Wilders. The political battle needs to fought out with political arguments, in parliament, not the court room.’
NRC breathes a sigh of relief: ‘Thank goodness: cleared of all charges’ its editorial heading reads. It then zooms in on Wilders’ attitude toward the judicial system. ‘The verdict came as relief for the protagonist, as he himself admitted. He has, after all, in his party programme, described judges as ‘D66 members in toga’ who are ‘cut off from reality. (…) ‘The PVV leader seemed to think the credibility of the judges depended on a not guilty verdict. That could be called arrogant. However, freedom of speech proved more important than the feelings of those Wilders may have insulted.’
The paper concludes that ‘a very thick line needs to drawn under the Wilders case’.