Only partially. The decision ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim because, while the first amendment does protect his right to film, that wasn't clearly established at the time of the incident. It was only the fourth amendment claim for which the court ruled the officers don't deserve qualified immunity.

Had they only hassled him and made him stop recording, they'd be getting off without a punishment. It was only because they arrested him (and it was only ruled that they arrested him because they didn't act with enough urgency to figure out what to do with him once they'd handcuffed him and put him in the pack of the police car) that they're being denied qualified immunity.