As to David Horowitz, that is not a fair comparison: nobody is suggesting jamming the frequency should Stern be permitted to broadcast, which would be a more appropriate analogy. We are suggesting that Donohue be able to excercise his right to freely speak and protest and encourage others to do the same, in a dignified manner. I can't speak to the Justice Thomas situation, but that speech may have been sponsored by a private student group and the students then had the option of attending or not. Certainly, they had the right to object and protest and register complaints, which is different from preventing someone else's right to speak, as in the Horowitz case.
Let's also make the further distinction that political speech is protected speech, as long as it is not treasonous, as you no doubt know. Obscene speech is not protected, and though we have had an eight year run with an emasculated Justice Department unwilling to uphold community standards ( the fallout being this kind of sophistry of mixing one kind of argument with another to advance obscenity under free speech) nontheless, Donohue is right and within bounds to challenge what the legal arm of the government has not had the temerity to do. V's wife.
And I'm glad to see you have enough faith in the government to allow (you use the word temerity) them to ban what they consider to be obscene.