Yes, nullification is frowned on by judges. That doesn't mean it's wrong; it means that many judges do not like anything that curtails their power as the black-robed potentate at the head of the room.
Jury nullification is a sacred part of Anglo-Saxon law, and everyone needs to know about it. As far as I'm concerned, it should be a part of jury instructions every trial, or included in high school civics classes, because the number of Americans who know this simple concept is vanishingly and frighteningly small.
Your last sentence there is NOT an example of jury nullification. In fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite.
It is, fundamentally, the job of the jury to decide law as well as fact. It's why we have juries -- it doesn't take 6 or 12 people to decide fact, after all -- a computer could do that. The jury exists to check abuse by the state, as a final stop to the application of bad law. This is so important because the state holds all the power (police, judge, prosecutor, jury pool, etc) to the point that without jury nullification, even the most innocent of the "innocent until proven guilty" of accused doesn't stand a chance against the system -- a system we ALL know is corrupt and dangerous.
So let the judges squirm. We, the people, have ourselves to protect.