It's also expressly what Adblock was designed for -- essentially punishing websites who choose to partner with advertisers who ignore common browser courtesy.
AdBlock is not "punishing" websites, doing in fact the exact opposite by making annoying websites usable to a loud and easily annoyed, but very active demographic. This means that even though you (the Adblock user) aren't seeing the blocked ads, you are still giving them eyeballs, which means that:
(a) you can still be targeted with advertising hidden in the actual content, and
(b) you can still forward that link to your acquaintances, many of whom do not have AdBlockers installed
Sure, you can think of it as "punishment", but Adblock is in fact a net win for advertisers and a net loss for everybody else. It is no coincidence that AdBlock Plus is developed by an advertising company.
If you want true punishment for such websites, the only real way to punish them is to stop giving them eyeballs entirely, being the online equivalent of voting with your wallet. Doing anything else that helps with the two afore mentioned points is helping them grow their bottom line, encouraging their current practices.
AdBlock punishes ALL websites equally (assuming you use the standard blacklist), not just those who have obnoxious content. But you can be assured that it is punishment as it impacts their revenue when ads are not loaded.
It doesn't impact revenue negatively, as users using ad blockers are more likely to be annoyed by or immune to ads, having an impact on the publisher's ranking in its relation to advertisers. Publishers are ranked based on the quality of the conversions they provide, whether it's views, clicks or actions. A lower ranking translates in lower earnings per view, click or action.
I stand by my point, ad blockers are a net win for publishers and advertisers.
