judgment.”); Eastern Books v. Bagnoni, 446 F.Supp. 643, 645 (W.D.Pa.1978) (though “nothing ha[d] been threatened and no other prosecution or other action ha[d] yet been taken,” holding that “in view of ... past harassment by the [c]ity ..., the seeds of a ripening controversy are pending[,] and ... this would be a proper ease for declaratory ... relief if a cause of action is otherwise made out”); cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41-42, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (where none of the plaintiffs “ha[d] been indicted, arrested, or even threatened by the prosecutor,” declining “to bring the equitable jurisdiction of the federal courts into play to enjoin a pending state prosecution”); Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders v. Attorney Gen., 436 Mass. 132, 763 N.E.2d 38, 41 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Whereas the majority would apply the same
holding that it is not holding that if a declaratory judgment will not end the controversy it is not proper holding that actual controversy requirement not met where prior to exhibition distribution or any threat of prosecution the plaintiff sought a declaration that a film was not obscene and that it would not be subject to prosecution if it exhibited or distributed it holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution holding that it may not