You might feel justified, but courts would likely disagree.
Apropos of anything else, the FCC regs around the 2.4GHz spectrum are pretty explicit, "Part 15 devices ... must accept any interference that may be received". In their eyes, the device that is flawed is the phone, not the Flipper.
I've been at a conference where someone decided doing this would be amusing. I'm pretty positive there would have been widespread support for addressing the issue with a little property destruction, with the alternative being "Congratulations, you've shown you can't play nicely. Your admission to the conference is revoked, you're blacklisted from our future conferences, and we'll let the organizers of other local conferences know your name and why you're banned from our conference so they'll be forewarned."
As for courts, if this hadn't already been resolved (at least on iOS) I wonder if you could request that jurors and the judge turn their phones on for a demonstration. Given the state of Android updates in the general public, it'd probably still be effective on a significant percentage of people.
I believe there's equivalent language (even for licensed uses) about not causing interference, so probably the Flipper and the phone are doing poorly here.
My understanding, entirely possible that it is incorrect, is that the "not causing interference" is to "authorized services", i.e. specifically licensed frequencies and users/devices, not other users of those "free-for-all" spectrums. But I may well be wrong, in which case I would agree with you.
Apropos of anything else, the FCC regs around the 2.4GHz spectrum are pretty explicit, "Part 15 devices ... must accept any interference that may be received". In their eyes, the device that is flawed is the phone, not the Flipper.