If I picked up a free, ad-supported newspaper from some booth on the street (pretty common where I live), and set up a Raspberry Pi with robotic arms and permanent markers to black out all the ads from my copy, would the publisher have any right to complain? Not any more, I think, than if I had wiped my ass with that paper. As soon as that copy enters my possession, I have every right to rip it apart as I see fit.
Replace "some booth on the street" with "some website" and "Raspberry Pi with robotic arms and permanent markers" with "browser plugin". This should not change anything about the moral and/or legal conclusion.
Now assume that some of the ads on the free paper were printed with toxic ink (malware) that stinks up my living room (computer), or were embedded with tiny chips to track when and where I read which story. Few people in real life would tolerate such ads, but for some reason we are constantly being told that we should allow them online.
I think we really need to emphasize these offline analogies. They are among the strongest arguments that could convince non-technical judges and juries to come up with reasonable rules for acceptable ads.
Advertisement is where spam was 20 years ago, and no amount of moral discussions can stop people from using spam filters. If the requirement to use gmail was that you had to turn off the spam filter and deal with all the scams, malware and crap every day, people would stop using gmail. For now people aren't forced into that choice, so people either just ignore the advertisements or filter it.