On winning the case, Wilders said:
"“I’m incredibly happy with this acquittal on all counts," Mr Wilders said outside the court. "It’s not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. Fortunately, you’re allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you’re not muzzled in public debate. An enormous burden has fallen from my shoulders.”"
Although the court tagged on some disapproving language to its judgment:
"The court found that Mr Wilders’ rhetoric was “on the edge of what is legally permissible” but not illegal. The judge described statements about a “tsunami” of immigrants as “crude and denigrating”, but legally legitimate given the wider context and his acknowledgement that those who integrate are acceptable and do not call for violence."
It was likely to be a win-win situation for Wilders in any case: had he been found guilty, he could protray himself as a martyr for freedom of speech; now that he's been acquitted he can present his rhetoric as being perfectly within the bounds of reasonable political debate (even though the court didn't rule it to be "reasonable", just not illegal).
There are some cases where using the law to limit free speech is a good thing. In a democratic society we take certain level of tolerance and mutual understanding for granted, but hate speech and incitement to violence can have a very toxic effect on a democratic culture, even if they are not acted on. Apart from these extreme cases, it's generally better to fight extremist rhetoric openly. Otherwise court cases will just have the effect of giving such movements a greater dose of the oxygen of publicity.