[Didymos Thomas]

But the Committee had decreed that Socrates was forbidden to teach what he taught, and according the Athenian law, their decrees had the force of law. So, Socrates did, indeed violate Athenian law. And he admits as much in the Apology.

Hmm, yes, basically, you're right. As I recall the committee order him to stop corruption the youth, and of course, Socrates did not think his teaching corrupted the youth.

Similarly, in recent times, Martin Luther King admitted that he had violated the ordinances of Birmingham, Alabama, and he spent some time in jail for that (see his Letter from a Birmingham Jail). But his defense was not that he had not violated the law, but that there was a "higher law" that he was obeying, that overrode the Birmingham ordinance.

Classic example of civil disobedience.

There is always the problem of why it is that Socrates thought it right to violate one law (that forbade him to teach) and yet argued it was wrong to violate the law by escaping his death.

Wouldn't this be classic civil disobedience? He willingly and openly violated a law he thought to be wrong because he thought he should violate the law and teach. However, he accepted his punishment from the state because he was obligated to do so - if he does not face his punishment willingly, he endorses anarchy and abandons the principles which drove him to teach, despite his order to not teach.

So, maybe the issue isn't which obligation is stronger. If we disobey the law on principle, and then avoid punishment, have we abandon the principle which drove us to break the law initially?