An unjust law is still a law

Most people break small laws without much thought: a jaywalk here, a few miles over the limit there. This question is about something else. It is about breaking a law on purpose, knowing exactly what it is, because you have decided the law is wrong. Sophocles staged the clash around 441 BC. In his Antigone, a king forbids anyone to bury a rebel's body, and the rebel's sister buries him anyway, telling the king that his decree cannot outrank the unwritten laws of the gods. Plato gave Socrates the other side. Awaiting execution in the Crito, Socrates turns down a chance to escape, imagining the city's Laws asking him what would become of a city whose verdicts anyone could set aside when they disagreed. Yet the same Socrates had told his jury he would keep doing philosophy even if they ordered him to stop. In 1846 Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail for refusing to pay his poll tax, in protest against slavery and the war with Mexico. Afterward he argued that under a government that did such things, a cell was the most honorable address a just person could have. Martin Luther King Jr. answered from a cell in Birmingham in 1963. Leaning on Augustine, he argued that an unjust rule has no real claim to be law, and that people are morally bound to defy it. But he set terms: act in public, in a spirit of love, and take the jail time willingly, so that what the public ends up seeing is the injustice of the law rather than the lawlessness of the protester. The difficulty is that conscience is available to everyone, including people breaking laws for causes you find abhorrent, and every one of them is sure. What law would you break, and what would you accept as the price?